UK medicines regulation is now officially non-scientific

[Asolepius]

Many of you will have heard about the new licensing regulations for homeopathy. The MHRA press release is here (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&useSecondary=true&ssDocName=CON2024653&ssTargetNodeId=389). 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 here (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/86). 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.

[asthmatic camel]

Done. I'll spread the word.

[The Don]

Done.

Thanks

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Done. Keep fighting the good fight.

[wollery]

Done, but I had to admit that I'm currently living in China. Don't know what effect that will have

[Mojo]

Is it worth writing to MPs as well?

[asthmatic camel]

Is it worth writing to MPs as well?

Synchronicity! I was just about to do so. :D

[Asolepius]

Is it worth writing to MPs as well?Yes, but not yet. PM me for guidance - there is a strategy.

[geoman]

Done, but ditto Wollery except in Italy.

[Deetee]

Done, but I had to admit that I'm currently living in China. Don't know what effect that will have
Probably more effect than the rest of us in the UK will have, seeing as how we now seem live in cloud cuckoo land, and that every time China seems to cough, the Western world catches flu

(PS this last statement is both rhetorical and literal)

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

Yep done,

Sense about Science, great site

[Soapy Sam]

Done.
PM en route.

[Blue Bubble]

And another "done".

[Pennywise]

/signed (in spirit only, not a UK citizen)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have signed up and commented as follows;

"We deplore the intrusion of unscientific and anti-rational therapies into the practice of medicine and condemn in the strongest terms the provision by the MHRA of a cloak of respectability to such a therapy.

This is in direct contradiction to the mission statement on the MHRA's website;

"We enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe."

By licensing homeopathic remedies the MHRA is failing in every single one of these aims."

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING IT IS IMPORTANT:

I have also read the MHRA's Press release and it contains this information;

"All homeopathic medicines fall within the scope of the Yellow Card Scheme, which will allow patients and healthcare professionals to report suspected side effects to the MHRA. For over 40 years, the Yellow Card Scheme has been the cornerstone of medicines safety monitoring in the UK. Since the Yellow Card scheme was set up, over 500,000 reports of suspected side effects (known as adverse drug reactions) have been completed, enabling the MHRA to identify and take action on a wide range of previously unrecognised medicines safety issues. Adverse effects associated with the use of homeopathic medicines should be reported to the MHRA using the Yellow Card Reporting Scheme. "

I had been wondering about this, and was pleased to see it explicitly confirmed by the MHRA. This is important, because adverse reactions include lack of efficacy. There is the potential to poke a hefty stick through the spokes of the homeopathic industry's wheels by encouraging the reporting of suspected treatment failures.

[Soapy Sam]

But...but it worked for my sister's hairdresser's next door neighbour!

[The Atheist]

This is sad.

To me, this is what sceptics and atheists should be doing instead of worrying about what retarded CT posters come up with. CT can be safely ignored, but homeopathy gaining any sort of legitimacy is an insult to any human who still considers him/herself to be a cognitive being.

Little bit far from the action, but if I can help, I will.

Good luck with it.

[Mojo]

I have also read the MHRA's Press release and it contains this information;

"All homeopathic medicines fall within the scope of the Yellow Card Scheme, which will allow patients and healthcare professionals to report suspected side effects to the MHRA. For over 40 years, the Yellow Card Scheme has been the cornerstone of medicines safety monitoring in the UK. Since the Yellow Card scheme was set up, over 500,000 reports of suspected side effects (known as adverse drug reactions) have been completed, enabling the MHRA to identify and take action on a wide range of previously unrecognised medicines safety issues. Adverse effects associated with the use of homeopathic medicines should be reported to the MHRA using the Yellow Card Reporting Scheme."

I had been wondering about this, and was pleased to see it explicitly confirmed by the MHRA. This is important, because adverse reactions include lack of efficacy. There is the potential to poke a hefty stick through the spokes of the homeopathic industry's wheels by encouraging the reporting of suspected treatment failures.In addition to the Yellow Card Scheme, there's also the "Defective Medicines Report Centre (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=290)", to which you can report "actual or suspected defects in medicinal products". (pointed out by Deetee (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1890927#post1890927)). According to an EU directive quoted in a document linked to on that page, one of the circumstances under which a recall of a medicine may be required is "if a medicinal product is lacking in therapeutic efficacy".

[Bob Collier]

Loved the title of this thread - my immediate thought was "So's America's. They've got the FDA".

[Asolepius]

In addition to the Yellow Card Scheme, there's also the "Defective Medicines Report Centre (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=290)", to which you can report "actual or suspected defects in medicinal products". (pointed out by Deetee (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1890927#post1890927)). According to an EU directive quoted in a document linked to on that page, one of the circumstances under which a recall of a medicine may be required is "if a medicinal product is lacking in therapeutic efficacy".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.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.


I think it would be looking at what's available and the indications claimed.

[Mojo]

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?

[tkingdoll]

Added my name to the list.

onwards and upwards!

[Deetee]

So how'd it go, Teek? I wasn't praying for you, promise.

[asthmatic camel]

Bump. Just in case anybody who can help missed this.

[Asolepius]

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 doctorsSigned 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 (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&useSecondary=true&ssDocName=CON1004429&ssTargetNodeId=373), 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.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"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!

[tkingdoll]

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?

[Mojo]

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?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.

[Filippo Lippi]

Signed

[Filippo Lippi]

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.

[Asolepius]

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.Great! Can we have a big push this weekend please? Parliament returns on Monday and we want big support to get attention of ministers.

[tkingdoll]

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.

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?

[Mojo]

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?Yes, certainly. But they don't want a level playing field. They want special treatment.

[Asolepius]

Update. I hear there may be developments in Parliament. This is as a result of the excellent response to the statement of objection (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/106). 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.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Update. I hear there may be developments in Parliament. This is as a result of the excellent response to the statement of objection (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/106). 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.

I'll e-mail you a copy of my letter from the Swedish Vet Association.

[Nucular]

Darnit, missed this thread before; I've signed the sense about science thing now, probably 2 days too late!

[John Hewitt]

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.

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]

I think "Sense About Science" should forget this but then they don't talk sense about science anyway.

What do you mean by that?

[John Hewitt]

What do you mean by that?

"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.

[Blue Wode]

Another two signatures added to the Statement of Objection. :)

John Hewitt, here’s your “A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat” link:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/

And here’s your short autobiographical sketch
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/author.htm

[Deetee]

Please everyone keep submitting your objections and comments to Chris Tyler on the Sense about Science link Asolepius gave.

To register your concerns:
· Sign this statement (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/EBMStatement.pdf)(click on the link at the bottom of the pdf) and send in your comments
· Contact medics and scientists and urge them to do the same

As Asolepius says, this will be debated in the House of Lords on the 26th October, and although this will not immediately change anything, it will serve as a marker of general concern and get things on the public record.

Those of you who have already registered your objections will have received an email from Chris. Included is this bit:The next stage is to make sure that everyone who should know about these regulations does. In preparation for the debate on 26th, to make a fully comprehensive case on these regulations, we want comments from EVERYONE who is concerned with the role of evidence in medicine. Please continue to publicise the EBM statement on our web site, contact us with suggestions and write about it in newsletters etc. If you are a member of an institution that could respond do let us know so that we can coordinate approaches, since some are already vocal on the issue.

[Mojo]

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. Did you actually read the press release or any of the discussion of it? For the first time since Product Licences of Right were issued in 1971, companies will be allowed to include information about the treatment and relief of minor, self-limiting conditions based on the use of the product within the homeopathic tradition. For example, labels may indicate that a product may relieve the symptoms of common colds and coughs, hay fever or chilblains. The purveyors of these things will be allowed, within the law, to make medical claims for their products without having to provide any evidence that they are in fact effective. That is what the issue is here.

[John Hewitt]

The purveyors of these things will be allowed, within the law, to make medical claims for their products without having to provide any evidence that they are in fact effective. That is what the issue is here.

Yes, I did read it and I have the feeling you are being excessively precious. Nobody has ever demonstrated, or will ever demonstrate, that homeopathic medicines are worth anything - they are only water. Do you really think you can ban something that harms nobody and clearly gives many people comfort?

If you ban their sale as medicines, they will be sold as medicaments or as remedies or whatever other phrasing can be constructed. What else will you ban because "Sense about Science" have no sense. Will you ban contributions into church offertory boxes because you are an atheist? Can I ask for a ban on deodorant sprays because, when I use them, women don't chase after me in the supermarket? Things should be banned only when harm can be demonstrated.

You seem anxious to ban whatever you don't believe and to build some kind of peer reviewed New Atlantis. The reality you are not facing up to is that cultures that claim to be utopias are, in fact, dictatorships and that is what I object to here. On the face of it, the rules proposed by that press release would harm nobody and would comfort many. I would say to scientists, do your own job and put the facts to people, then allow them to make their own decisions.

You can have my signature whn you can demonstrate that homeopathy, given under those rules, causes anyone any harm.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

John

Are you happy that NHS money is spent propagating the lie that is homeopathy?

You appear to be highly concerned about your vision of truth in science. Are you happy about the stamp of official approval that is progressively being applied to homeopathy by the health regulatory authorities? Do you not think that has a corrosive effect on public understanding of science?

You also seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. It would be hard to epxlicitly ban homeopathy, but the subject under discussion is resisting its adoption by the UK health system.

[asthmatic camel]

You can have my signature whn you can demonstrate that homeopathy, given under those rules, causes anyone any harm.

Homeopathic remedies don't harm anyone, how could they when they contain no active ingredients? The danger is that people choose them instead of proven therapies and expert medical advice; official endorsement increases the risk of this happening.

And it does happen. One high profile case was Spike Milligan's wife, who decided to dismiss conventional medicine in favour of homeopathy. At one stage, the homeopath confidently declared that Mrs. Milligan was cured. Pity she died a few months later, isn't it?

[Asolepius]

Firstly, welcome to the forum. As the OP on this thread I feel obliged to explain a few things.

Here is a hypothetical scenario. Those responsible for these new regulations might claim that no harm is done because only `mild self-limiting conditions' are allowed to be on the labels. A distinguished medical expert might ask whether constipation would be one of those. Naturally the reply would be "Of course". The distinguished medical expert might then say "I suppose you realise that one of the first signs of bowel cancer is constipation?". Now many other products are marketed for constipation, but the difference is that they work. If they don't work, there is most likely something more serious. The danger of homeopathy is that it encourages people to abandon rational thought that might save their lives.

There is a vastly wider issue at stake than just health. The UK and the USA recently went to war, resulting it was reported this week in the deaths of some 600,000 people in Iraq alone. Please don't quibble about the numbers, you only have to look at the news to see the extent of the daily slaughter. It emerged very quickly that the evidence supposedly justifying the war was absent. Moreover, in the UK two public enquiries exonerated the government, and considered that the British Prime Minister had no obligation to verify the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This demonstrates the disdain with which evidence is treated in the highest echelons of government.

What the present scandal over homeopathy is about is not really whether it works or not. We all agree here that it doesn't - you do as well. Even the MHRA agrees with that. It quite clearly stated that homeopathic products "have difficulty in establishing efficacy in clinical trials". In its very next sentence, the MHRA agreed to accept `non-scientific data'. In other words, it is prepared to accept lies about homeopathy, but it won't accept anything other than scientific data for any other products.

Do you really think that government sponsored lying is good for society - or even tolerable? You might respond by saying "Get real, governments always lie". This is perfectly true. They tell more lies than truth. Just because it's the norm does not make it right. You might also say "Why bother? It's a losing battle". Maybe you are right there as well, but believe me, I will go to my grave a guilty man if I don't try. Read my sig line.

[Mojo]

You can have my signature whn you can demonstrate that homeopathy, given under those rules, causes anyone any harm.The point is not whether homoeopathy does any harm; it is whether it does any good.

Do you think that the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines" should be allowed to claim that their "medicines" can be used to treat particular conditions in the absence of any evidence that their "medicines" are effective in treating those conditions?

To make this a little easier for you, I'll ask you a second question. I'd like you to answer both, please.

Do you think that pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to claim that their products can be used to treat particular conditions in the absence of any evidence that their products are effective in treating those conditions?

[Mojo]

Nobody has ever demonstrated, or will ever demonstrate, that homeopathic medicines are worth anything - they are only water. So why do you think it is OK for the manufacturers of homeopathic "medicines" to make therapeutic claims about their products? Do you think that vendors should be allowed to give misleading descriptions of the products they are selling? Do you think it is OK for second hand car dealers to wind back the odometers on the cars they're selling and claim that the cars have done less miles than they actually have?

If, as you say, "nobody has ever demonstrated, or will ever demonstrate, that homeopathic medicines are worth anything" do you think that the purveyors of these "medicines" should be allowed to claim that they are worth something?

Should people be allowed to lie in order to sell a product?

[Asolepius]

.....and I will add my other favourite quotation from Burke:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.John Hewitt advocates doing nothing. This is why evil happens. Does anyone really think that Pandora's box still has its lid on?

[Cynric]

If you ban their sale as medicines, they will be sold as medicaments or as remedies or whatever other phrasing can be constructed.

That's how they are presently sold, and I doubt anyone here has any problem with that. It's lamentable that people are not persuaded by good argument, certainly, but they are free to do as they please and believe what they will. Government-sanctioned misinformation is another matter.


Things should be banned only when harm can be demonstrated.


And things should only be officially licenced as medicine if benefit can be demonstrated.


You seem anxious to ban whatever you don't believe and to build some kind of peer reviewed New Atlantis. The reality you are not facing up to is that cultures that claim to be utopias are, in fact, dictatorships and that is what I object to here. On the face of it, the rules proposed by that press release would harm nobody and would comfort many. I would say to scientists, do your own job and put the facts to people, then allow them to make their own decisions.

A little OTT perhaps?
If you consider the requirement for scientific evidence of the efficacy of medicines to be onerous, do you perhaps think the MHRA should be disbanded altogether?

[asthmatic camel]

.....and I will add my other favourite quotation from Burke:
John Hewitt advocates doing nothing. This is why evil happens. Does anyone really think that Pandora's box still has its lid on?

Some of us are hiding beneath the lid, occasionally sniping at the serpents and other uglies.

[Mojo]

Do you really think that government sponsored lying is good for society - or even tolerable? You might respond by saying "Get real, governments always lie". This is perfectly true. They tell more lies than truth. Just because it's the norm does not make it right. You might also say "Why bother? It's a losing battle". Maybe you are right there as well, but believe me, I will go to my grave a guilty man if I don't try. Read my sig line.I'm sure that the irony of the author of a document called "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat" defending the right of homoeopaths to lie about their products is not lost on most of the people reading this thread.

[John Hewitt]

Here is a hypothetical scenario. Those responsible for these new regulations might claim that no harm is done because only `mild self-limiting conditions' are allowed to be on the labels. A distinguished medical expert might ask whether constipation would be one of those. Naturally the reply would be "Of course". The distinguished medical expert might then say "I suppose you realise that one of the first signs of bowel cancer is constipation?". Now many other products are marketed for constipation, but the difference is that they work. If they don't work, there is most likely something more serious. The danger of homeopathy is that it encourages people to abandon rational thought that might save their lives.
<snip>
What the present scandal over homeopathy is about is not really whether it works or not. We all agree here that it doesn't - you do as well. Even the MHRA agrees with that. It quite clearly stated that homeopathic products "have difficulty in establishing efficacy in clinical trials". In its very next sentence, the MHRA agreed to accept `non-scientific data'. In other words, it is prepared to accept lies about homeopathy, but it won't accept anything other than scientific data for any other products.

Do you really think that government sponsored lying is good for society - or even tolerable? You might respond by saying "Get real, governments always lie". This is perfectly true. They tell more lies than truth. Just because it's the norm does not make it right. You might also say "Why bother? It's a losing battle". Maybe you are right there as well, but believe me, I will go to my grave a guilty man if I don't try. Read my sig line.


I can see two positive reasons for bringing these people into the NHS. The first is to provide a channel for those patients who do have serious problems. The second is to provide well but worried patients with placebos, something that Doctors have prescribed forever. When I was little they were commonly called "tonics." They taste(d) like patients felt a "medicine" should taste and had a long list of dreadful sounding ingredients at minute concentrations. Patients will always want such things and the attention that goes with them. I think it is better to provide them within the system than have patients going outside for them.

We are not talking about the Iraq war and evidence is treated with disdain within science just as much as outside it. In this case, you are ignoring the evidence that the placebo effect is real and the evidence that some patients need attention rather than treatment. Very often, alternative therapists are providing just those things and if the NHS can save the time of its serious physicians by these techniques then that is good.

The NHS is not lying about homeopathy, neither is the government. Perhaps they think, as Burke might have said, that it is a mistake to keep on doing something that we know doesn't work.

[Asolepius]

I can see two positive reasons for bringing these people into the NHS. The first is to provide a channel for those patients who do have serious problems. The second is to provide well but worried patients with placebos, something that Doctors have prescribed forever. When I was little they were commonly called "tonics." They taste(d) like patients felt a "medicine" should taste and had a long list of dreadful sounding ingredients at minute concentrations. Patients will always want such things and the attention that goes with them. I think it is better to provide them within the system than have patients going outside for them.I think you misunderstand what is happening here. The subject of this discussion is not about making homeopathy available on the NHS. It is about licensing. The regulation of medicines is far from perfect, it sometimes fails, but it is at least based on the need to support a claim with evidence. I tend to avoid the word `proof', because there are no absolutes in medicine, only varying degrees of uncertainty. The purpose of the MHRA is to protect the public by minimising uncertainty. What is momentous about the present fiasco is not just that uncertainty is now tolerated, but positively encouraged.


We are not talking about the Iraq war and evidence is treated with disdain within science just as much as outside it. In this case, you are ignoring the evidence that the placebo effect is real and the evidence that some patients need attention rather than treatment. Very often, alternative therapists are providing just those things and if the NHS can save the time of its serious physicians by these techniques then that is good.This argument is as old as the hills and as badly eroded by logic. It's also incredibly old-fachioned. We are supposed to be moving away from paternalistic medicine, whereby the physician takes the attitude of "There there, I know what you need, but you don't need to know anything about it". This is a condescending and insulting mindset. No, I am not in any way denying that the placebo effect is real. After 30+ years in clinical science I'm very well aware of that. The problem with it is, that to use it doctors are obliged to lie to patients. It's a widespread fallacy that doctors prescribe placebos. They don't, it's illegal. What you are recommending has enormous ethical and legal implications. We are far better off researching how the placebo effect works and using the knowledge to design better treatments.

The NHS is not lying about homeopathy, neither is the government. Perhaps they think, as Burke might have said, that it is a mistake to keep on doing something that we know doesn't work.You need to do a bit more research. For a start, the NHS is not the MHRA. But while we are on the subject, the NHS Direct (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197&sectionId=22124) website admits that there is no evidence that homeopathy works. Actually this has very recently been updated as a result of many of us protesting at the misleading information it was providing before. At the same time as admitting this, the NHS continues to spend millions on homeopathy. Do you think that is honest?

I am quite shocked at your degree of cynicism and disdain for science. It's not perfect either, there are many abuses and errors, but it's better than fantasy. Why don't we tell people there are fairies at the bottom of their gardens that will grant them their wishes for good health?

[tkingdoll]

I'm going to simplify this even further for John:

Makers of homeopathic remedies want their products to be licenced as medicines without having to provide evidence that they work.

Then, once licenced, they will sell the 'medicines' to the unsuspecting public as though they do work.

The public will buy the medicine believing it works as well as other, proven medicines, and take it for real symptoms of real illnessess. If their illness is real, they will not get better, they may get worse, and they may die.

A licence is an endorsement of a medicine. The public trust that what they are buying contains something that will help them in the way the labelling describes. Homeopathic remedies will be licenced and labelled with specific claims to effiacy which are not proven and not true.

It's a con. Let's not tolerate cons.

[asthmatic camel]

John Hewitt, are you, perchance, involved in the production or sale of homeopathic "remedies"? Or are you merely a good, old-fashioned troll? I think we should be told.

[John Hewitt]

I think you misunderstand what is happening here. The subject of this discussion is not about making homeopathy available on the NHS. It is about licensing. The regulation of medicines is far from perfect, it sometimes fails, but it is at least based on the need to support a claim with evidence. I tend to avoid the word `proof', because there are no absolutes in medicine, only varying degrees of uncertainty. The purpose of the MHRA is to protect the public by minimising uncertainty. What is momentous about the present fiasco is not just that uncertainty is now tolerated, but positively encouraged.


<snip>

You need to do a bit more research. For a start, the NHS is not the MHRA. But while we are on the subject, the <snip> nhs website admits that there is no evidence that homeopathy works. Actually this has very recently been updated as a result of many of us protesting at the misleading information it was providing before. At the same time as admitting this, the NHS continues to spend millions on homeopathy. Do you think that is honest?

I am quite shocked at your degree of cynicism and disdain for science. It's not perfect either, there are many abuses and errors, but it's better than fantasy. Why don't we tell people there are fairies at the bottom of their gardens that will grant them their wishes for good health?

I am not a believer in talking round in circles and I think I have said my piece on this matter.

My main point is that public policy will never and can never be based solely on scientific evidence. We live in a social world composed of people whose primary logic is not objective or scientific. It is both inevitable and proper that public policy will be significantly swayed by the general public's own perceptions. The public's choice of placebo may change but for now, I would let the NHS prescribe these things.

I will close with a few statements which you can agree with or not as you will.

1. Doctors have always prescribed placebos and, since, I have never heard of any doctor being prosecuted for this act, its legality, or otherwise, seems to me immaterial.
2. I have my own research programme which, as indicated in my web site, is bioepistemic evolution and its implications; researching the administrative structure of the British health service is not part of that programme and, accordingly, I respectfully decline your suggested research project.
3. I am not at all disdainful of properly conducted science - in my judgment science is the best source of objective knowledge available to human beings.
4. That is why I do not like to see science sullied; that is why I am disdainful of some scientists who, in my opinion, are demonstrably either incompetent or deceitful, or both, and whose professional opinions seem to be driven purely by self-interest; that is why I am disdainful of the manifest trash, the "garden fairies," that those people present as "quality controlled" science and that is why I am disdainful of scientific institutions, and I mean most scientific institutions who, fully knowing about the behaviour of such staff, respond to protests about it with indifference and with cover ups.
5. Finally, I am concerned by organizations such as "Sense about Science." I suppose I should be glad to see their efforts at maintaining high scientific standards but, on the other hand, they do represent exactly the same institutions that engage in these cover ups and that leaves some real doubts in my mind. I would have more confidence in the elevated scientific standards of such bodies if those standards did not vanish in a puff of platitudinous rhetoric whenever questions were asked about their own, or their institutes', behaviour.

[Mojo]

The public's choice of placebo may change but for now, I would let the NHS prescribe these things. The issue being discussed in this thread is that the MHRA is allowing the manufacturers of "these things", which you have admitted are worthless, to make claims about conditions they can treat.

If you think that the manufacturers of homoeopathic remedies should be allowed to tell lies, why are you so outraged about the idea of scientists telling lies? Why the double standard?

[Cynric]

4. That is why I do not like to see science sullied; that is why I am disdainful of some scientists who, in my opinion, are demonstrably either incompetent or deceitful, or both, and whose professional opinions seem to be driven purely by self-interest; that is why I am disdainful of the manifest trash, the "garden fairies," that those people present as "quality controlled" science and that is why I am disdainful of scientific institutions, and I mean most scientific institutions who, fully knowing about the behaviour of such staff, respond to protests about it with indifference and with cover ups.

This is what's so confusing and engaging about your contribution to the debate. Your righteous indignation aimed at bad scientists who allow politics and careerism to corrupt their objectivity does not apparently translate to homoeopaths. Their efforts to promote their trash hypotheses (despite the mountain of evidence against them) by political lobbying, celebrity endorsement and appeals to antiquated authority, should be anathema, surely?

You seem to reserve more venom for flawed scientists than outright frauds.

[geni]

You can have my signature whn you can demonstrate that homeopathy, given under those rules, causes anyone any harm.

There are a couple of cases of posible harm directly atributed to zincam.

[asthmatic camel]

5. Finally, I am concerned by organizations such as "Sense about Science." I suppose I should be glad to see their efforts at maintaining high scientific standards but, on the other hand, they do represent exactly the same institutions that engage in these cover ups and that leaves some real doubts in my mind. I would have more confidence in the elevated scientific standards of such bodies if those standards did not vanish in a puff of platitudinous rhetoric whenever questions were asked about their own, or their institutes', behaviour.

Platitudinous rhetoric? Cover ups? Real doubts?

Wanker. Next time anyone you care for falls ill, take them to a homeopath and watch them die.

[wollery]

I wouldn't bother trying to talk sense to Dr. Hewitt. His website makes it quite clear that he holds all scientific establishments and most scientists in very low esteem, and would seemingly rather have all scientific findings published without peer review, than run the risk of just one good discovery getting rejected.

The reason? He sees himself as a great cellular researcher who made a stunning discovery about cell surface transport mechanisms, and this great discovery was dismissed and ignored by the establishment, thus robbing him of his rightful place in the scientific history books.

That he was a very good researcher is demonstrably true, he studied at one of the best institutes under one of the greats in the field. He proposed a theory which all agreed at the time had some merit, but which, according to the correspondences on his own website, has no supporting evidence, with all available evidence pointing towards competing theories, to the point that his theory is no longer even discussed. The correspondences are on his website because he was so frustrated about his theory not being discussed that he took it upon himself to write to a large number of senior researchers to ask why they weren't researching his theory. Not surprisingly several of them were quite miffed at this line of enquiry.

During his posts in this thread I believe he has made it quite clear that he doesn't understand that the general public lack any knowledge or understanding of how medicines are developed, and would probably think that "placebo" refers to a group of drugs in much the same way that "antibiotic" does. That they trust that the medicine their doctor prescribes them will be the best available for their condition. He is clearly so intent on grinding his axe that he apparently doesn't care who gets caught between it and the whetstone.

[fls]

1. Doctors have always prescribed placebos and, since, I have never heard of any doctor being prosecuted for this act, its legality, or otherwise, seems to me immaterial.

I just wanted to comment on this statement as a physician working in the US and Canada.

It is now considered unethical for a doctor to knowingly prescribe a placebo (in line with the general shift from a paternalistic to an informed consent approach following the Nuremberg trials). The act would be dealt with through the relevant professional organization, rather than through prosecution, and it is unlikely you would hear about it. It would not be dismissed as immaterial, but rather would be given serious consideration. It is an issue of importance to physicians when regulations are put in place that contravene the principles of ethical medical practice.

Linda

[John Hewitt]

I wouldn't bother trying to talk sense to Dr. Hewitt. His website makes it quite clear that he holds all scientific establishments and most scientists in very low esteem, and would seemingly rather have all scientific findings published without peer review, than run the risk of just one good discovery getting rejected.

The reason? He sees himself as a great cellular researcher who made a stunning discovery about cell surface transport mechanisms, and this great discovery was dismissed and ignored by the establishment, thus robbing him of his rightful place in the scientific history books.

That he was a very good researcher is demonstrably true, he studied at one of the best institutes under one of the greats in the field. He proposed a theory which all agreed at the time had some merit, but which, according to the correspondences on his own website, has no supporting evidence, with all available evidence pointing towards competing theories, to the point that his theory is no longer even discussed. The correspondences are on his website because he was so frustrated about his theory not being discussed that he took it upon himself to write to a large number of senior researchers to ask why they weren't researching his theory. Not surprisingly several of them were quite miffed at this line of enquiry.

During his posts in this thread I believe he has made it quite clear that he doesn't understand that the general public lack any knowledge or understanding of how medicines are developed, and would probably think that "placebo" refers to a group of drugs in much the same way that "antibiotic" does. That they trust that the medicine their doctor prescribes them will be the best available for their condition. He is clearly so intent on grinding his axe that he apparently doesn't care who gets caught between it and the whetstone.

I have said my piece on homeopathy. I do not intend to respond to your ad hominem remarks or to the distortions you choose to attribute to me.

My opinions on cell surface dynamics are described on my web site, "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat." The observational evidence supportive of my views is given in chapter 7. If you wish to discuss that evidence, or the factual history of this field, I suggest you create a separate thread.

[Mojo]

My opinions on cell surface dynamics are described on my web site, "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat." The observational evidence supportive of my views is given in chapter 7. If you wish to discuss that evidence, or the factual history of this field, I suggest you create a separate thread.Let's get back to the topic of this thread then: the fact that the MHRA are allowing the manufacturers of homeopathic "medicines" to make therapeutic claims for products which you have conceded are worthless. Why do you think it is not worth doing anything about this? Why do you make a distinction between scientists not telling the truth, which you appear to take very seriously indeed, and the manufacturers of homeopathic remedies not telling the truth, which you don't appear to feel is worth bothering about?

[Soapy Sam]

As Mr. Hewitt cannot yet post URLs, for those interested, here is a link to the website he mentions.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/

[asthmatic camel]

As Mr. Hewitt cannot yet post URLs, for those interested, here is a link to the website he mentions.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/

Many thanks, S.S. Seems that Hewitt is less than impartial, doesn't it?

[tkingdoll]

Many thanks, S.S. Seems that Hewitt is less than impartial, doesn't it?

You have to get all the way to the end of his book to get Godwins, though. :D

[wollery]

But it's a bloody good Godwin!

[John Hewitt]

But it's a bloody good Godwin!

These references to Godwin escape me, perhaps you would elaborate?

[Mojo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

[wollery]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


ETA Gah, beaten to it by Mojo!

[Soapy Sam]

Seems that Hewitt is less than impartial, doesn't it?

Indeed. But in fairness, we hardly expect impartiality on a personal website.

I read Candace Pert's book "The Molecules of Emotion" some time ago. This site reminds me of it.

The "impartial, objective scientist" is as mythical as any unicorn. Real scientists are passionate about what they do. Disappointment and anger at being ignored, rejected, plagiarised or gazumped is a very human response.
In some cases it is more justified by the facts than others.

Whether justified in John Hewitt's case, I am not qualified to judge.

[Nucular]

Indeed. But in fairness, we hardly expect impartiality on a personal website.

I read Candace Pert's book "The Molecules of Emotion" some time ago. This site reminds me of it.

The "impartial, objective scientist" is as mythical as any unicorn. Real scientists are passionate about what they do. Disappointment and anger at being ignored, rejected, plagiarised or gazumped is a very human response.
In some cases it is more justified by the facts than others.

Whether justified in John Hewitt's case, I am not qualified to judge.

And who would be, indeed. The "impartial, objective scientist" is not only mythical, but an unfair expectation: it's the scientific method which is impartial and objective, and is designed specifically to allow partial, unobjective human scientists to perform objective work.

What these emotional fellows then say in non-scientific, un-peer reviewed works about the work they're doing is really not science, though it may be interesting. It can be considered quite apart from their actual scientific endeavour.

That said, I think this John Hewitt chap has some very interesting points of view, and I want to hear what he has to say. From what I've seen so far of his online collection of essays, it seems well-written, thoughtful and knowledgeable (none of which necessarily equals 'true', mind).

I have to agree with the others on this thread that his views concerning this homeopathy legislation are simply inaccurate, but I would actually like to hear what he has to say on the other matters. Let's remember to be sceptical here, and not simply dismissive :)

[asthmatic camel]

Hewitt freely admits that homeopathy is ineffective, yet seems to have no problem with it being accepted and officially endorsed by government. Hardly unlikely that he'll attract some criticism for taking this stance, is it?

[Nucular]

Hewitt freely admits that homeopathy is ineffective, yet seems to have no problem with it being accepted and officially endorsed by government. Hardly unlikely that he'll attract some criticism for taking this stance, is it?

No, absolutely, and as I said I completely agree with all comments on this thread as regards his frankly odd stance on that whole thing - I think his position there is indefensible. But the odd comment about his other stuff, including the 'Habit of Lies' stuff, just seemed to me a bit less considered, that's all.

[John Hewitt]

No, absolutely, and as I said I completely agree with all comments on this thread as regards his frankly odd stance on that whole thing - I think his position there is indefensible. But the odd comment about his other stuff, including the 'Habit of Lies' stuff, just seemed to me a bit less considered, that's all.

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.

[John Hewitt]

Many thanks, S.S. Seems that Hewitt is less than impartial, doesn't it?

Thank you for the Wikipedia reference to Godwin's law, from which I quote below.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions[2], the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and Wikipedia discussion pages.

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.

This "Camel" person seems to be rather irrational. He (and here I am assuming masculinity) uses personal invective, makes ad hominem attacks, puts distorted claims into the mouths of his targets and does not understand his own supposed principles. Whatever nonsense will he come up with next? I suggest that readers should take out their battered copies of Thouless and Thouless (Straight and Crooked Thinking) and mark off the various illogicalities in his reasoning as he works through them.

[Nucular]

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.

Scientific facts are, I agree, not the only issue here: all in this discussion seem agreed that homeopathy is at best a placebo. What I feel is indefensible is the idea that given this agreement, we should therefore not object to legislation designed to mislead the public into thinking otherwise. This has been clearly stated before on this thread, and I have not seen a satisfactory answer from you; I think accordingly that yes then, this position is 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.

Despite the fact that this is not the point of the thread, nor of the present discussion, I'm intrigued as to who you mean.

Who, specifically, in the NHS wants to do "this"? What, specifically, do ytou mean by "this"? And who, specifically, are the air headed academics who never see patients?

Do you work in the NHS? I'm just wondering to which category you yourself belong, Dr. Hewitt.

[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.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/asthmaticcamel/hitler-ani-170.gif

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2006388#post2006388). ;)

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?

[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! :)

[Yuri Nalyssus]

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:D. 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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1121749.stm) 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! :rolleyes:

[asthmatic camel]

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

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 (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/Guided+Tours/Consumers/What+types+of+ads+and+promotions+does+the+ASA+look +into.htm). 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. (http://www.houseoflords.co.uk/)

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.)

[Asolepius]

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6085242.stm)is the first news item.

Presumably John Hewitt has tired of being an agent provocateur?

[Mojo]

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.)And a man capable of simultaneously complaining (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5007482.stm) about "medical apartheid" and approving of (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6085242.stm) homoeopathy not being held to the same standards as real medicine.

[Asolepius]

You can watch the debate live here (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/?Encoding=5521&Type=Live).

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

You can watch the debate live here (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/?Encoding=5521&Type=Live).


Who is the old bird with the net curtain hanging over her shoulder?

[Mojo]

The Countess of Mar. She treats her goats with homoeopathy, doncha know.

[Mojo]

Unfortunately I don't have sound here. Does anyone know what is being said?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The Countess of Mar. She treats her goats with homoeopathy, doncha know.

Absolutely bloody awful. Just spewing the usual complete crap and pretending it is evidence.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Mar told us there is loads of evidence for homeopathy then cited all the usual debunked suspects. Like I said, bloody awful.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Thew twit now speaking has just said that because the government supports 5 homeopathic hospitals homeopathy must be a good thing. I think that is taking appeal to authority to ridiculous lengths!

[Blue Wode]

Since this has reached the heart of government, let's not forget that Cherie Blair's sister is a homeopath:


Lyndsey Booth LLB(Hons) LCPH(Lon) MARH
Ethics and Welfare

Lyndsey qualified as a homeopath at the College of Practical Homeopathy in Finchley. Prior to this, she worked as a solicitor. She practises in Islington, in London, and is committed to raising the profile and accessibility of homeopathy in the wider community.

http://www.a-r-h.org/AboutUs/WhoRunsARH.htm

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Since this has reached the heart of government, let's not forget that Cherie Blair's sister is a homeopath:

Didn't know that.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I think the minister (I'm not sure who he is) just said that the EU rules were optional but the UK decided to opt in. Terrific.

[Asolepius]

Norman Warner. I have some pretty choice letters from him.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He has just reminded us to use the 'yellow card' scheme. I think that needs to be pursued vigourously.

[Mojo]

Absolutely bloody awful. Just spewing the usual complete crap and pretending it is evidence.

Mar told us there is loads of evidence for homeopathy then cited all the usual debunked suspects. Like I said, bloody awful.

Thew twit now speaking has just said that because the government supports 5 homeopathic hospitals homeopathy must be a good thing. I think that is taking appeal to authority to ridiculous lengths!

I think the minister (I'm not sure who he is) just said that the EU rules were optional but the UK decided to opt in. Terrific.Has anyone said anything sensible yet?

[Mojo]

He has just reminded us to use the 'yellow card' scheme. I think that needs to be pursued vigourously.How can you report adverse effects of something that has no effects?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Has anyone said anything sensible yet?

Our side had its say first. Dick Taverne was excellent and he has just been able to comment on the minister's reply and called it feeble and flatly pointed out that the minister's denial of the MHRA's action being to help promote the homeopahic industry is directly contradicted by the MHRA's own documents!

I'm not sure when we get to read the Hansard transcript. Also Asolepius and I will both be at a Sense About Science reception next week where it will be interesting to hear more about what happens next.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

How can you report adverse effects of something that has no effects?


Ah, but that's the clever bit. Lack of efficacy is defined as an adverse reaction. It opens the door wide for a massive challenge and exploited effectively this could be an unanticipated benefit of these rules. The manufacturers are held to high standards for compliance with requirements to comply with investigation of these reports. The homs wanted the credibility conferred by government regulation they can damn well live with the consequences.

[Asolepius]

Great stuff from Dick Taverne. I've spent a fair few hours collating material for his briefing, and he made excellent use of it. But otherwise the standard of debate was poor. Martin Rees was good, so was Les Turnberg, and Patrick Jenkin. Most of those opposing avoided the central issue - all the usual crap about side effects etc. Nothing to do with moving away from science. Are these the great and good of the land?

[Mojo]

I'm not sure when we get to read the Hansard transcript. According to the HoL website (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/pdvn/home.htm) it is "available from about 3 hours after the House sits". I assume they mean close of business. Also Asolepius and I will both be at a Sense About Science reception next week where it will be interesting to hear more about what happens next.Keep us posted!

[Mojo]

Ah, but that's the clever bit. Lack of efficacy is defined as an adverse reaction. It opens the door wide for a massive challenge and exploited effectively this could be an unanticipated benefit of these rules. The manufacturers are held to high standards for compliance with requirements to comply with investigation of these reports. The homs wanted the credibility conferred by government regulation they can damn well live with the consequences.There's also this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1890927#post1890927), which seems to indicate that an ineffective medicine can be recalled as defective.

[Mojo]

According to the HoL website (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/pdvn/home.htm) it is "available from about 3 hours after the House sits". I assume they mean close of business. A report actually seems to go on the website about three hours after the particular debate. Go to this page (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/home.htm) and click on "House of Lords" at the right hand side. It currently goes up to 12:45pm, which I suspect is when they broke for lunch.

ETA: Lord Taverne's speech is now here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/13.htm). The link should work at least until it is on the main Hansard site.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

A report actually seems to go on the website about three hours after the particular debate. Go to this page (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/home.htm) and click on "House of Lords" at the right hand side. It currently goes up to 12:45pm, which I suspect is when they broke for lunch.

ETA: Lord Taverne's speech is now here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/13.htm). The link should work at least until it is on the main Hansard site.

Thanks Mojo.

Here is Countess of Mar talking the classic crap;

"
In addition, the six-year study at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, part of the United Bristol Healthcare Trust and one of five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine involved over 6,500 consecutive patients with chronic diseases. All were referred by their GP or hospital specialist and many had tried conventional medicine first. There is a group of patients for whom conventional chemical treatments either do not work or are contra-indicated. Many find homeopathy helpful. Over 70 per cent of the Bristol patients in this study reported positive health changes after homeopathic treatment."

That Bristol study certainly had its intended effect. It's almost embarrassing that someone can stand up in public and say such moronic things.

But, actually of course, it's not moronic, it's sly. That last sentence is literally true, but it has nothing to do with showing homeopathy works and she damn well knows it or she wouldn't have used those careful phrases.

It literally makes me feel sick with anger.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Or how about this from the Lord Colwyn,

"The noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned some and the evidence is available. I went on a course about 15 years ago on the relationship between quantum physics and homeopathy. I probably did not understand a word I was told at the time, but at least there was evidence that the two were linked."

See, quantum is like a magic word. He didn't even understand what he was toldbut he was convinced.

[Mojo]

Here is Countess of Mar talking the classic crap;

"In addition, the six-year study at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, part of the United Bristol Healthcare Trust and one of five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine involved over 6,500 consecutive patients with chronic diseases. All were referred by their GP or hospital specialist and many had tried conventional medicine first. There is a group of patients for whom conventional chemical treatments either do not work or are contra-indicated. Many find homeopathy helpful. Over 70 per cent of the Bristol patients in this study reported positive health changes after homeopathic treatment."

That Bristol study certainly had its intended effect. It's almost embarrassing that someone can stand up in public and say such moronic things.

But, actually of course, it's not moronic, it's sly. That last sentence is literally true, but it has nothing to do with showing homeopathy works and she damn well knows it or she wouldn't have used those careful phrases. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh? At least she didn't mention the goats this time: The Countess of Mar: If homeopathy does not work, could the Minister explain how my goats think it works?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure I am competent to respond to that question.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60123-03.htm:rolleyes:

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh? At least she didn't mention the goats this time: :rolleyes:

Did the old bat inherit her title? You dip too many times into that tiny aristocratic genepool and see what happens.

[Mojo]

Great stuff from Dick Taverne. It might have been better if he hadn't mentioned "homeopathic provings" though, as I'm sure the general public don't get the difference between a homoeopath "proving" a remedy and someone proving that it works (and I'm equally certain that the homoeopathic industry capitalises on this potential for confusion).
Under this new regulation, the sole basis on which claims of efficacy can be made for homeopathic products quite legally is “homeopathic provings”. There is no need for clinical or scientific tests.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/13.htmI don't think the "provings" needed to be mentioned: it was my understanding that all that is needed under the new regulations is evidence that homoeopaths use the remedy in question to treat the particular condition.

[Mojo]

Did the old bat inherit her title? I suspect that she did. If it was a life peerage I think she would be Baroness Mar rather than The Countess of Mar.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Mar,_30th_Countess_of_Mar

[Mojo]

They seem to have been misrepresenting the argument in exactly the same way as John Hewitt: pretending it's about whether homoeopathy is harmful, or how popular it is, rather the actual issue of whether the manufacturers should be allowed to make claims about conditions their products can treat without needing any evidence that they are effective. We even have Colwyn repeating the suggestion that this misleading information will somehow "benefit the ever-growing number of users of homeopathic medicine".

Perhaps he also thinks that "clocking" odometers benefits the purchasers of second hand cars. "Look what a low-mileage car you're getting! And at such a good price too!"

Remember what the MHRA site used to say about homoeopathic medicines: Attempts to acquire marketing authorisations for new homoeopathic medicines were unsuccessful owing to difficulties in proving efficacy in conventional clinical trials. This was between the implementation of the Medicines Act in 1971 and the introduction of the "Simplified Registration Scheme" in 1992. Over 20 years during which, apparently, they failed to demonstrate that any of their products actually worked. And then, because they had consistently failed to demonstrate efficacy, they got the goalposts moved, not just once in 1992 so that they could introduce new products, but again this year so that they can make their rubbish look more like proper medicine.

:hb:

[geni]

They seem to have been misrepresenting the argument in exactly the same way as John Hewitt: pretending it's about whether homoeopathy is harmful,

So? They are not the only ones who can play that game:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16978951&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1793246&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16681630&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3624689&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum

[Mojo]

They weren't talking about homoeopathy being harmful in that people may die as a result of using it instead of proper medicine (they don't seem to consider that to be a problem). They were bringing up that old favourite of proponents of ineffective but apparently harmless therapies, iatrogenic disease: Countess Mar: They are safe and, unlike many newly developed drugs for which strict testing is required, have never killed anyone. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, should know, the first principle of any therapy is, first of all, do no harm.

The noble Lord complains that homeopathy is not evidence-based. His charity, Sense About Science, claims:

“Evidence-based medicine has been a major public gain of the 20th century”.

I agree that it is essential to protect the public from powerful new drugs, as has been clearly demonstrated by the recent Northwick Park drug trial that nearly killed six healthy young men. But what about the case of the withdrawal of Vioxx, in which the drug, used to treat arthritis, has been estimated to be responsible for between 88,000 and 140,000 extra cases of serious coronary heart disease in the USA? And this: Lord Colwyn: Given the massively high levels of iatrogenic disease and morbidity from orthodox treatments, I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, can dismiss homeopathy in such a frivolous manner. He and my noble friend Lord Jenkin imply that homeopathy can be harmful. I sat on the Select Committee to which the noble Lord referred and although I do not have the papers in front of me, I believe we felt that as homeopathic medicines were basically water, they could not be harmful.

Each year in the UK, about 850,000 adverse effects are caused by orthodox medical treatment. I am sorry to say that 120,000 of these are deaths. How can the use of homeopathy compare with this? Where is the logic of dismissing treatment by a homeopathic product which has never directly caused a death and, when analysed, is shown to contain no active ingredient? Hang on.

"Where is the logic in dismissing treatment by a homeopathic product which ... when analysed, is shown to contain no active ingredient?"

:dl:

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Countess of Mar

http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=27017

"Hon Assoc RCVS 2006"

Oh, dear.

[Asolepius]

Countess of Mar

http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=27017

"Hon Assoc RCVS 2006"

Oh, dear.More on the dear countess etc on David Colquhoun's page (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#mhra2). I am surprised to see she is a cross-bencher. She selects data like a seasoned party politician.

[geni]

They weren't talking about homoeopathy being harmful in that people may die as a result of using it instead of proper medicine (they don't seem to consider that to be a problem).

You don't have to let them decide exacty what you are going to talk about.

[John Hewitt]

Our side had its say first. Dick Taverne was excellent and he has just been able to comment on the minister's reply and called it feeble and flatly pointed out that the minister's denial of the MHRA's action being to help promote the homeopahic industry is directly contradicted by the MHRA's own documents!

I'm not sure when we get to read the Hansard transcript. Also Asolepius and I will both be at a Sense About Science reception next week where it will be interesting to hear more about what happens next.

I heard snippets from this debate on "Today in Parliament." I would guess that "excellent" means you agreed with him.

Correct me if I am wrong but, before founding "Sense about Science," Dick Taverne studied "greats" at Oxford and then he went into Law and politics, being a junior minister for labour and joining the "gang of four" in the SDP. I believe he also worked in public relations, until parliamentary rules were changed to stop the conflicts of interest that arose from such activities.

So, to present its case on a medical issue "Sense about Science" is represented by a man who has no knowledge of either science or medicine, but is familiar with law, politics and PR. No problem there then?

It was good to note that, in Parliament, as distinct from science, other voices got a hearing.

[Blue Wode]

Or how about this from the Lord Colwyn,

"The noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned some and the evidence is available. I went on a course about 15 years ago on the relationship between quantum physics and homeopathy. I probably did not understand a word I was told at the time, but at least there was evidence that the two were linked."

See, quantum is like a magic word. He didn't even understand what he was toldbut he was convinced.
….and proceeded in 1991 to co-author ‘How to Use Homeopathy: A Comprehensive Instruction Book’:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Use-Homeopathy-Comprehensive-Instruction/dp/1852302089

Interestingly, Lord Colwyn is also a Vice President of the Blackie Foundation Trust, a charitable organisation whose aims are "the advancement of the study of, and education in the science of homoeopathy and to carry out and publicise the results of research."
http://www.blackieft.org/aboutus.htm

- as well as being a Patron of The National Federation of Spiritual Healers:
http://www.nfsh.org.uk/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

[Big Al]

What I really object to is that my taxes are being spent on homeopathy, chiropracty, acupuncture, aromatherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy and all this other bunk.

And yet the NHS cuts back on use of anticancer drugs because they're trying to save money! How many millions or billions would they save by cutting out all these worthless "alternative remedies", not to mention non-essential elective surgery?

[Blue Wode]

It was good to note that, in Parliament, as distinct from science, other voices got a hearing.
Did you agree with those who were for the regulation?

If so, would you please briefly re-state your answers to the two questions that Mojo put to you or, if more convenient, highlight the answers you gave to them in previous posts:

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?

Thank you.

[Blue Bubble]

I have finally managed to catch up by reading the Hansard transcript.

Lord Taverne ends with this:


I understand that it is not customary to have a vote on a Prayer of this kind. We shall continue, as I am sure will many others, to press for these regulations to be withdrawn. I hope that the Government will give further thought to them, but I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.


Motion, by leave, withdrawn.



This is all so depressing. What comes next ? Do we play the "Yellow Card" ?

:mad:

[asthmatic camel]

This is all so depressing. What comes next ? Do we play the "Yellow Card" ?

:mad:



No. We should continue to make every effort to keep this issue high-profile. Write to your M.P., write to Boot's, complain and make a nuisance of yourself everywhere you can think of until somebody in power sits up and takes notice.

[Mojo]

Interestingly, Lord Colwyn is also a Vice President of the Blackie Foundation Trust, a charitable organisation whose aims are "the advancement of the study of, and education in the science of homoeopathy and to carry out and publicise the results of research."Isn't it a bit naughty of him not to mention that? Several other speakers in the debate declared interests, even if only, in the case of Mar, to say she uses homoeopathy.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I heard snippets from this debate on "Today in Parliament." I would guess that "excellent" means you agreed with him.

Correct me if I am wrong but, before founding "Sense about Science," Dick Taverne studied "greats" at Oxford and then he went into Law and politics, being a junior minister for labour and joining the "gang of four" in the SDP. I believe he also worked in public relations, until parliamentary rules were changed to stop the conflicts of interest that arose from such activities.

So, to present its case on a medical issue "Sense about Science" is represented by a man who has no knowledge of either science or medicine, but is familiar with law, politics and PR. No problem there then?

It was good to note that, in Parliament, as distinct from science, other voices got a hearing.

Not sure what your point is there, John.

If you are pointing out that a non-scientist can talk sense about science then I'd agree with you!

If you want to quibble in detail with what he said then please show us what he got wrong.

It's also still not clear why you won't answer Mojo's rather easy questions.

[brodski]

No. We should continue to make every effort to keep this issue high-profile. Write to your M.P., write to Boot's, complain and make a nuisance of yourself everywhere you can think of until somebody in power sits up and takes notice.

Don't just write to your MP, go and see your MP at their next constituency surgery, that way the MP will actually hear about your complaint rather than someone on their staff forwarding your letter straight to eth DoH where nothing will happen.

[Blue Wode]

Great to see that the Daily Mail published a reader comment on the scandal from James Randi:

Just what is so difficult about conducting definitive trials of homeopathy? That was done not too long ago via a BBC program, but the results didn't please the homeopaths, so they were ignored. Of course, Darwinian selection will eventually weed out those naive persons who abandon working medicine in favor of quackery, but that's a slow process. I'd rather not wait...

- James Randi, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412818&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
:)

[Victor Meldrew]

Great to see that the Daily Mail published a reader comment on the scandal from James Randi:


:)


Interesting article. Loved the comment made by someone that Smarties could now also be used as medicine, as chocolate makes you feel better!

Now, thats a MUCH better idea that little white water tablets.....

[fls]

Interesting article. Loved the comment made by someone that Smarties could now also be used as medicine, as chocolate makes you feel better!


That's a poor example. There is actual research to back up chocolate.

Linda

[Nucular]

Gah! That last sentence by Melanie Oxley!

For treatment of a serious illness, we would hope a patient would approach a registered homeopath or their doctor.

To end on that is a travesty. Nice article else though. Labours - in a good way - the fact that so very many people object to this legislation, and does a good job explaining it too.

[Victor Meldrew]

That's a poor example. There is actual research to back up chocolate.

Linda

Good point Linda!

Anybody feeling ill? I have some new medication available. I am a Smartieologist, and I provide smartieopathic remedies.

If anyone else wishes to train as a Smartieologist, please send me £4000 for complete training, and on satisfactory completion of the course you will receive a lovely cream certificate with gold writing stating that you are a "Certified Smartieologist" (Training can be completed in 5 minutes or less! Yes, YOU can be qualified before lunch!)

[Victor Meldrew]

Good point Linda!

Anybody feeling ill? I have some new medication available. I am a Smartieologist, and I provide smartieopathic remedies.

If anyone else wishes to train as a Smartieologist, please send me £4000 for complete training, and on satisfactory completion of the course you will receive a lovely cream certificate with gold writing stating that you are a "Certified Smartieologist" (Training can be completed in 5 minutes or less! Yes, YOU can be qualified before lunch!)

Should have mentioned:
On the course you will learn:

How to use BLUE smarties to treat depression;
How to use GREEN smarties to make you more environmentally aware;
How to use YELLOW smarties to give you a sunnier outlook on life;
How RED smarties can be used to treat anger; and
Using BROWN smarties for bowel problems

and "alternative tubing" - interesting and effective way to use the tube - valuable advice for tiresome patients!

How to use the lid correctly - how pressing down hard with the lid from the smarties on the patients back will help you correctly diagnose the patients condition (the clue is in using the inside facing on the lid - the letter that mysteriously appears faintly inprinted on the patients skin after pressing down hard for 5 minutes will aid your diagnosis - e.g the letter "b" means use the blue smartie, the letter "s" means use the brown smartie).

Do to the intensity of the training, I can only train 100,000 people at a time as Smartieologists, so SIGN UP NOW! Be the first in your area to promote this wonderful new way of healing!

[malbui]

Good point Linda!

Anybody feeling ill? I have some new medication available. I am a Smartieologist, and I provide smartieopathic remedies.

If anyone else wishes to train as a Smartieologist, please send me £4000 for complete training, and on satisfactory completion of the course you will receive a lovely cream certificate with gold writing stating that you are a "Certified Smartieologist" (Training can be completed in 5 minutes or less! Yes, YOU can be qualified before lunch!)
Too late for me - I've been automedicating for years.

Mmmm... Smarties.

[Verde]

Just in case anyone on this side of the Pond was wondering, Smarties are simply a superior form of M&Ms.

[wollery]

Only Smarties have the answer!

[Mojo]

So that's why John Hewitt can't provide one.

[geni]

and "alternative tubing" - interesting and effective way to use the tube - valuable advice for tiresome patients!

How to use the lid correctly - how pressing down hard with the lid from the smarties on the patients back will help you correctly diagnose the patients condition (the clue is in using the inside facing on the lid - the letter that mysteriously appears faintly inprinted on the patients skin after pressing down hard for 5 minutes will aid your diagnosis - e.g the letter "b" means use the blue smartie, the letter "s" means use the brown smartie).


I think they have stoped produceing smarties in tubes.

[Wudang]

I think they have stoped produceing smarties in tubes.

See! Already the science of smartie therapy advances with the times!! Proof that it's scientific!!

[John Hewitt]

Not sure what your point is there, John.

If you are pointing out that a non-scientist can talk sense about science then I'd agree with you!

If you want to quibble in detail with what he said then please show us what he got wrong.

It's also still not clear why you won't answer Mojo's rather easy questions.

My point here was that propaganda only speaks to its own purposes and only engages with those who agree with it. I'm sorry that the answers I gave MOJO earlier did not conform to his purposes.

That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.

[Mojo]

My point here was that propaganda only speaks to its own purposes and only engages with those who agree with it. I'm sorry that the answers I gave MOJO earlier did not conform to his purposes.

That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.So your point, like the points of your earlier "answers", wasn't actually relevant to the subject of the debate (and of this thread), which is whether the manufactureres of homoeopathic "medicines" should be allowed to make misleading therapeutic claims on the packaging of medicines sold over the counter. Nothing to do with the NHS.

How will being given misleading information be of assistance to "the REAL public", even if they are not rational? Do not people deserve to be given information which is supported by evidence, whether or not they are rational in their decisions? Do you think that because some people are not rational, everyone else should be deprived of the ability to make informed decisions by being fed misleading information?

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" that can be sold directly to the public without the involvement of a doctor or pharmacist?

Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products?

Do you know what a Larsen ListTM is?

[Nucular]

I'm sorry that the answers I gave MOJO earlier did not conform to his purposes.

I think it was more 'did not seem to address the topic in hand', than 'did not conform to his purposes'.

The topic in hand being about labelling of over-the-counter homeopathic products, not about NHS homeopathy.

Nevertheless...

That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.

{Emphasis mine}

Best served? Do you really think people will be - in fact, are - best served by spending their tax money on 'treatments' which can ultimately be dangerous, or at best useless? At the expense of real treatments?

I know we're agreed on the efficacy question, but your approach here just does not seem to follow.

ETA: I really would address Mojo's post first, if I were you...

[wollery]

No, it's not.

It's about whether or not people should be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of magic water, which demonstrably has no efficacy.

Again, you avoid the point, and instead try to shift the debate onto whether or not homeopathy should be available on the NHS. Something that has nothing at all to do with the legislation. This can only be due to either dishonesty or inability to read.

So I ask you a simple question, to which a yes or no answer will suffice.

If homeopaths are allowed to label their water as efficacious then more people will believe that it actually works. Is that what you want Dr. Hewitt?

[asthmatic camel]

Dr. Hewitt, you've been asked to answer some very easy questions by Mojo and have yet to respond with anything other than evasion. Is it possible that you're prescribing worthless remedies in order to boost your income?

[fls]

That point, in brief, was that the NHS is a public body that deals with real members of the public. Many people are not rational in the decisions that they take and, in the real world, the NHS needs to accommodate to that fact. This is not a matter of whether homeopathy works, it is a matter of finding that working middle ground that best serves the REAL public.

I remember this lesson from my ballet teacher. The pas de bourree within the setting of a dance is necessarily imperfect; you move into and away from the step from a variety of positions and are often moving during the execution (applies to any step). Rather than serving as an excuse for sloppy technique, it meant that you had to be perfect when practising your exercises in the studio.

Yes, the real world is necessarily imperfect. But doesn't that mean that we should strive for perfection in those areas under our control? That when we have a regulatory body charged with reviewing the available information and making statements as to what the evidence shows, that that's what it should actually do? If we add another layer of obfuscation to the process, doesn't it make it more likely that John/Jane Q. Public will move further away from the ideal, rather than closer?

Linda

[John Hewitt]

So your point, like the points of your earlier "answers", wasn't actually relevant to the subject of the debate (and of this thread), which is whether the manufactureres of homoeopathic "medicines" should be allowed to make misleading therapeutic claims on the packaging of medicines sold over the counter. Nothing to do with the NHS.

How will being given misleading information be of assistance to "the REAL public", even if they are not rational? Do not people deserve to be given information which is supported by evidence, whether or not they are rational in their decisions? Do you think that because some people are not rational, everyone else should be deprived of the ability to make informed decisions by being fed misleading information?

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" that can be sold directly to the public without the involvement of a doctor or pharmacist?

Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products?

Do you know what a Larsen ListTM is?

If this has nothing to do with the NHS, why do this thread keep quoting it?

Those members of the public who have a rational bent will readily understand rational explanations of the worth of homeopathy.

People should receive good information but they should be free to select their own views and their own medicines from the marketplace of ideas.

I have already stated that I do not believe you can eradicate a belief in homeopathic remedies. I therefore belive that they should be sold in environments that give patients easy access to good, professional medical advice.

To your last two questions, my answer is no and no.

[Mojo]

Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products?

Do you know what a Larsen ListTM is?To your last two questions, my answer is no and no.Now that you've managed to answer the question "Do you think that the government should permit vendors to make misleading claims about their products" with a "no", perhaps you can try the following question as well:

Do you think that the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, should be allowed to make claims implying that their "medicines" have therapeutic efficacy?

[John Hewitt]

I remember this lesson from my ballet teacher. The pas de bourree within the setting of a dance is necessarily imperfect; you move into and away from the step from a variety of positions and are often moving during the execution (applies to any step). Rather than serving as an excuse for sloppy technique, it meant that you had to be perfect when practising your exercises in the studio.

Yes, the real world is necessarily imperfect. But doesn't that mean that we should strive for perfection in those areas under our control? That when we have a regulatory body charged with reviewing the available information and making statements as to what the evidence shows, that that's what it should actually do? If we add another layer of obfuscation to the process, doesn't it make it more likely that John/Jane Q. Public will move further away from the ideal, rather than closer?

Linda

You strive for perfection all you like, just do not ask everyone else to become a ballet dancer.

I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?

Shall hospitals ban clerics from their doors - begone ye priests and clerics and rabis and imams and and and. Henceforth, shall all patients, who might soon shuffle off their mortal coils, receive a Gideon edition of "The Holy Gene" by Richard Dawkins - bound in real plastic? Shall they then be counselled to find comfort in contemplating their contribution to the great adventure that has been life's evolution?

[Mojo]

I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?

Shall hospitals ban clerics from their doors - begone ye priests and clerics and rabis and imams and and and. Henceforth, shall all patients, who might soon shuffle off their mortal coils, receive a Gideon edition of "The Holy Gene" by Richard Dawkins - bound in real plastic? Shall they then be counselled to find comfort in contemplating their contribution to the great adventure that has been life's evolution?This is another strawman argument: nobody is suggesting this. However, there is a question which can be asked here:

Should the priests (assuming they are not also qualified as doctors) be allowed to give medical advice and treatment?

[axon]

People should receive good information but they should be free to select their own views and their own medicines from the marketplace of ideas.

Exactly. People should be free to choose whether to buy any sort of remedy. They should also be not be given misleading information, which is exactly what the issue is about, deliberately misleading labelling on homeopathic remedies.

[Nucular]

If this has nothing to do with the NHS, why do this thread keep quoting it?

Because you keep bringing it up, precipitating 'well that's not the issue but since you bring it up...' posts.

I have already stated that I do not believe you can eradicate a belief in homeopathic remedies. I therefore belive that they should be sold in environments that give patients easy access to good, professional medical advice.

A 'harm reduction model' for quackery sounds like an interesting idea, but your premise and conclusion here are somewhat mysterious. How does allowing patients to be misinformed amount to 'good, professional medical advice'?

I hope you answer Mojo's next question, quoted here for your convenience:

Do you think that the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines", which you have conceded are worthless, should be allowed to make claims implying that their "medicines" have therapeutic efficacy?

Given your answer to the more general question about the government allowing vendors to make false claims, it seems to me that there's only one answer you can give; but it's amazing what equivocation, selective attention and billigerence can achieve. Show us what you can do ;)

[fls]

You strive for perfection all you like, just do not ask everyone else to become a ballet dancer.

I did not mean for that to be taken literally.

Recognizing that we necessarily fall short of perfection in any endeavour, how is purposefully moving towards imperfection a reasonable response?

I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?

How is that relelvant? They are not under any obligation to make supportable claims.

The MHRA is charged with determining which claims are supportable. What is wrong with asking them to do that?

Shall hospitals ban clerics from their doors - begone ye priests and clerics and rabis and imams and and and. Henceforth, shall all patients, who might soon shuffle off their mortal coils, receive a Gideon edition of "The Holy Gene" by Richard Dawkins - bound in real plastic? Shall they then be counselled to find comfort in contemplating their contribution to the great adventure that has been life's evolution?

None of this is relevant to the issue. People can still be free to choose that which gives them comfort. But just like I am obliged to *not* mislead my patients, the MHRA should be obliged to not mislead the public.

ETA: Allowing homeopathic elixirs to place claims on their labels does nothing to bring these products into the setting of "good, professional medical advice". Physicians and pharmacists are not going to advise their use. And since they will be sold over-the-counter in drug and grocery stores, anyone can make their selections without any professional advice whatsoever.

Linda

[Yahzi]

It was good to note that, in Parliament, as distinct from science, other voices got a hearing.
But they're talking about science.

Apparently you think scientific facts should be decided by a political process?

[Yahzi]

I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of what you are asking for here. A typical hospital contains a multidenominational chapel. Will you ban them, because they make unsupportable claims?
I do not know why you cannot see the ultimate absurdity of your example.

Does the hospital allow priests into the operating room? Do the priests make diagnosis? Do they prescribe drugs?

Hospitals also have cafeterias - by your logic, that makes a short-order cook indistinguishable from a heart surgeon.

Your obduracy is staggering. You understand the distinction perfectly well. You are simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong.

If homeopathic medicines don't work, then the public is best served by banning them. This is so obvious that even the homeopaths have to pretend they work.

[Big Al]

The NHS runs on tax money. Do you think homeopathy, iridology, acupuncture, colonic irrigation and chiropractic clinics can be run for nothing?

It isn't just a question of homeopathy being harmless. The fact is that, with a finite amount of cash, running a homeopathy clinic diverts badly needed funds from some other clinic that might do demonstrable good.

The big decisions in the NHS are not being made by doctors and nurses, but by faceless PC administrators and attention-seeking politicians. As a taxpayer, I can consider myself a stakeholder in the NHS, and I'd like to ask, no, DEMAND, that all these worthless processes and treatments be scrapped in favour of ones that WORK!

[Big Al]

But then again, I'm only a cash cow, to be milked at will by the Government to make them look caring and sharing.

[Asolepius]

I don't have time to answer individual posts here as there are so many, so I'll do a bit of a round up. Firstly, dear Dr Hewitt, I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on the esteem you seem to have for those opposing the motion in the Lords. Half of them were hereditary peers with no more claim to intellectual high ground than my cat. Well at least the cat is not easily deluded. Do you despise science so much that you prefer their opinions to the facts? I think you should be aware of some of the latter.

I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary. Dr Hewitt, how can it possibly be undesirable to include such a warning? The answer is to be found in the MHRA's own explanatory memorandum - anything like that would `inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry'. What does this mean? The influence of the homeopaths is more pervasive than we had imagined. Don't forget that Michael Fox, until recently chief exec of the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, is a director of the MHRA.

On reading all this material, what strikes me is that such imaginary concepts as homeopathic `provings', `stocks', and `potentisation' are all discussed as if they were real science. This is our own medicines regulatory agency deluding itself with quackery. They might as well try to regulate alchemy or astrology.

I am less concerned about someone's qualifications than I am about their commitment to truth. However, anyone who has read `The March of Unreason' will know that Dick Taverne has a better grasp of science than many who claim to practise it. How condescending you are being Dr Hewitt - it ill becomes you. I see that Baroness Barker, who also opposed the motion, is a Lib Dem spokesperson for health - without as far as I can see the slightest qualification for the job. Should you not have criticised her as well?

So in conclusion Dr Hewitt, do you really think you have done yourself any credit here? You decide......

[Cynric]

...Well at least the cat is not easily deluded...

Unlike the Countess' goats.;)


I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary.

Now that's really worrying. They must be pretty confident of their support base among the political elite to have the nerve to ignore Royal Colleges and patient's groups. But I suppose that having the Prince of Wales, the PM, his wife and his wife's sister on board would make them a touch cocky.

I'm sure you'll do your damnedest to make hay with this Asolepius. Good luck.

[John Hewitt]

I don't have time to answer individual posts here as there are so many, so I'll do a bit of a round up. Firstly, dear Dr Hewitt, I can't pass up the opportunity to comment on the esteem you seem to have for those opposing the motion in the Lords. Half of them were hereditary peers with no more claim to intellectual high ground than my cat. Well at least the cat is not easily deluded. Do you despise science so much that you prefer their opinions to the facts? I think you should be aware of some of the latter.

I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary. Dr Hewitt, how can it possibly be undesirable to include such a warning? The answer is to be found in the MHRA's own explanatory memorandum - anything like that would `inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry'. What does this mean? The influence of the homeopaths is more pervasive than we had imagined. Don't forget that Michael Fox, until recently chief exec of the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, is a director of the MHRA.

On reading all this material, what strikes me is that such imaginary concepts as homeopathic `provings', `stocks', and `potentisation' are all discussed as if they were real science. This is our own medicines regulatory agency deluding itself with quackery. They might as well try to regulate alchemy or astrology.

I am less concerned about someone's qualifications than I am about their commitment to truth. However, anyone who has read `The March of Unreason' will know that Dick Taverne has a better grasp of science than many who claim to practise it. How condescending you are being Dr Hewitt - it ill becomes you. I see that Baroness Barker, who also opposed the motion, is a Lib Dem spokesperson for health - without as far as I can see the slightest qualification for the job. Should you not have criticised her as well?

So in conclusion Dr Hewitt, do you really think you have done yourself any credit here? You decide......

I have already made it perfectly clear that I regard homeopathy as nonsense. What I admired about that debate was that those who disagreed were allowed to speak. I have no problems at all with the kind of warning labels you suggest. I merely think that some people will always buy junk remedies and that they should be allowed to do so through a channel that can lead them to decent medical advice.
I have also made it clear that I do not despise science at all, I have always regarded scientific method as giving the best estimate of truth. My problem is that I have seen so little of the scientific method in science.
I do despise those hypocritical members of the scientific community who subvert scientific method to the furtherance of their own ambitions. I mean those who, despite their claims to the contrary, will neither allow any platform for dissent nor engage with the dissenters.
Taverne protests about the march of unreason but does not see the abuse and unreason perpetrated in the name of science.

Many readers on this thread will have been British scientists so read this carefully. In my mind, there is no doubt that my work on cell biology was, substantially, correct and I do believe that some senior members of British science excluded that work to conceal their own failures. If I talk to British science about this serious scientific problem I get ignored. On the other hand, if I talk to a piece of junk science, like homeopathy, then I start getting lots of attention.
How much credit do you think that does British science? You decide .....

[Asolepius]

What I admired about that debate was that those who disagreed were allowed to speak. My goodness, and there was I thinking that a parliamentary debate only allowed one side to speak. Now there's a thing.
I have no problems at all with the kind of warning labels you suggest. I merely think that some people will always buy junk remedies and that they should be allowed to do so through a channel that can lead them to decent medical advice.....and how pray do these regulations ensure that? Or even influence patients just a tiny bit in that direction? Many readers on this thread will have been British scientists so read this carefully. In my mind, there is no doubt that my work on cell biology was, substantially, correct and I do believe that some senior members of British science excluded that work to conceal their own failures.So how many scientists agreed with you? If I talk to British science about this serious scientific problem I get ignored. On the other hand, if I talk to a piece of junk science, like homeopathy, then I start getting lots of attention.
How much credit do you think that does British science? You decide .....Now this is getting seriously off-topic. If you want to start a thread about your own personal gripes, do so, but this one is about government-endorsed lying.

[Mojo]

I have already made it perfectly clear that I regard homeopathy as nonsense. Are you in favour of or against the regulations that are the subject of this thread, and of the parliamentary debate that you so admired, which allow the manufacturers of homoeopathic "medicines" sold directly to the public to make claims implying that their "medicines" have therapeutic efficacy?

[John Hewitt]

My goodness, and there was I thinking that a parliamentary debate only allowed one side to speak. Now there's a thing.
....and how pray do these regulations ensure that?
I was merely regretting that science does not allow both sides a hearing.

[wollery]

I was merely regretting that science does not allow both sides a hearing.Please only speak for scientific fields that you have direct experience of.

[Blue Wode]

Quite a brusque display of indifference on the homeopathy issue from Tony Blair in today’s Guardian:

"I wouldn't bother fighting a great battle over homeopathy, I mean there are people who use it, people who don't use it, it is not going to determine the future of the world, frankly.”

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1937504,00.html

[tkingdoll]

Quite a brusque display of indifference on the homeopathy issue from Tony Blair in today’s Guardian:

I might write to him replacing the word 'homeopathy' with 'knives' or 'guns'...

[Soapy Sam]

Tony who?

Hey You know those Weapons of Mass Destruction Saddam had? The ones nobody could find?
Could they be homoeopathic bombs?

I wonder whether he thinks the death of half a million Iraqis will contribute positively to the future of the world?

That man makes me ashamed to be British.

[tkingdoll]

Let's get this into perspective: Tony Blair's wife spends taxpayer's money on consulting psychics and Feng Shui experts.

Nuff Zed.

[Soapy Sam]

Yeah. Teek, I lost friends in Iraq. Iraqi friends, possibly killed by bombs paid for by my tax money. So now we plan to kill British Citizens, by more subtle means, and again the taxpayer picks up the tab, this time for the unstoppable expansion of the homoeopathic industry.

I'm getting to the stage where I really, really want to punch somebody.

[tkingdoll]

Yeah. Teek, I lost friends in Iraq. Iraqi friends, possibly killed by bombs paid for by my tax money. So now we plan to kill British Citizens, by more subtle means, and again the taxpayer picks up the tab, this time for the unstoppable expansion of the homoeopathic industry.

I'm getting to the stage where I really, really want to punch somebody.

Well, I guess it's a small consolation but Tony doesn't have too much time left in office. And it could be worse, the Tories are vehemently for homeopathy.

[Nucular]

"I think that if I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country, I think that is the time to start worrying."

So as long as less than half of the country's children are taught Bronze Age mythology instead of science in their Arts Academies subsidised by evangelical churches and McDonald's, Blair will continue to pay for it to happen with our money.

And then treating the maladies of those people who find themselves imbued with a Bronze Age understanding of the world with magic rituals and potions with miraculous claims on the labels, in state-owned hospitals-cum-temples, well that won't change the world, "frankly".

Nope, it won't. Because that's the world we find inflicted on us already, by idiots who'd rather think about sending our soldiers to die in whatever military quagmire we've let the fashionable superpower embroil us in than education and health.

But hmmm, maybe stopping these things might just help us along just enough to glimpse that age of enlightenment we so fondly imagine we live in, rather more than bombing other countries back to the Bronze Age too.

[Blue Wode]

Good to see James Randi criticising the MHRA in this week’s Swift newsletter:


RELAXING THE RULES

We were recently heartened by the news that Britain's leading scientific institutions have declared that unwise changes in the regulation of homeopathic medicines are putting patients at risk. More than 700 doctors and scientists have signed a comprehensive statement opposing new rules which allow homeopaths to make actual medical claims for their “preparations.” Countering this well-stated objection, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Britain’s drug regulatory agency, claims that the new rules they initiated would actually benefit patients. In effect, the regulation of medicines in the UK has officially moved further away from science, than towards it.

In September, the MHRA introduced rules to allow homeopaths to specify the ailments for which their “remedies” can be used, without the need of any supporting evidence. The Royal College of Pathologists, the Medical Research Council, the BioSciences Federation, the Physiological Society, the British Pharmacological Society, the Society for Applied Microbiology, the Royal Society the Academy of Medical Sciences, along with four other national societies are alarmed that claims can now be made about efficacy of these products without rigorous and objective evidence. It appears that this MHRA decision is in surrender to powerful pressures brought about by the quackery industry. And, we suspect, HRH Charles is applauding this retreat into mythology.

Read on…
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-11/110306relaxing.html#i1

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have before me the full text of the responses to the MLX 312 consultation, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. Several respondents, including the Royal College of Physicians, The Royal College of GPs, and the Eczema Society, strongly recommended that homeopathic products should carry a warning that there is no clinical trial evidence for any claims that might be inferred. Not only was this advice ignored by the MHRA and the govnt, but it was not even mentioned in the MHRA's summary of responses. In fact, all critical responses were laundered out of the summary.

Surely, this must be able to be taken somewhere. Judicial review? Who hears complaints of maladministration?

[Mojo]

If it can be shown that they hadn't made the decision on a proper basis, for example as a result of not taking these recommendations into account, I think judicial review might be possible. It might cost a bit though.

There's a short guide to judicial review from the House of Commons Library here (http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:UMgCrnB8yp0J:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-044.pdf) (unfortunately the original isn't currently available as part of the Parliamentary website is down for maintenance over the weekend, but the pdf file should be here (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-044.pdf) when it's back up).

[asthmatic camel]

And it could be worse, the Tories are vehemently for homeopathy. Got a linky?

[Soapy Sam]

Surely, this must be able to be taken somewhere. Judicial review? Who hears complaints of maladministration?


Oh I don't doubt there's a department for that.

But who hears complaints of purest moronic grade pig-ignorance?

[Blue Wode]

Latest update here:
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20034#20034

The link includes the full text of a letter which Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science, sent to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Health, on 13th November 2006. Small excerpt:
The rules came into force without parliamentary time. Concerns raised by medical bodies during mlx312 received no attention. (Of 32 responses received, two mistook the consultation for being about herbal medicines, five simply acknowledged receipt, three concerned inclusion of anthroposophic medicines and eight raised serious reservations; but this was described as “widespread support” in the conclusions).