Featured

Back Door Attack on Homeopathy: Speak Out Now, Or Lose Your Freedom

May 19, 2012 by admin in Politics with 29 Comments

If you value your right to manage your own health and choose your health treatment, then it’s time to speak out or forever hold your peace. A backdoor attack will soon limit most of the UK’s homeopathists and pharmacies.

Barbed Wire, Threatening Sky

by Heidi Stevenson

You may think that homeopathy is utter nonsense. If you do, that’s your right and you don’t have to partake of it.

You may think that pharmaceutical drugs are utter nonsense. If you do, that’s your right and you don’t have to take them.

The flip side is that people who do wish to utilize those modalities have the right to access them. That should be obvious. It should be equally obvious that the homeopathy consumer does not have the right to deny access to allopathic methods, nor does the allopathy consumer have the right to deny access to homeopathic methods.

The right to access is particularly notable when people pay out of their own pockets.

However, access to homeopathic medicines outside the NHS in the UK is on the verge of being severely curtailed by new and entirely unwarranted regulation. No case has been made that the medicines have been harmful and need to be regulated. They have been unregulated for the last century with no ill effects. Nonetheless, UK regulations severely impacting everyone’s right to utilize homeopathic medicines will be implemented within the next couple of months—unless there’s enough of an outcry to modify the law.

Please note that regulation of homeopathic medicines to insure appropriate and good manufacturing standards are—and should be—in effect. The issue here is how these products are distributed and made available to consumers.

This is an issue of freedom, of our civil right to manage our health as we choose. Your views on homeopathy should make no difference in your view of access to it. If access to anything can be denied without legitimate reason, then access to anything else can also be denied. Sooner or later, something you do care about will be axed.

If you believe in freedom, then the time to show it is when something you don’t like is being attacked for specious reasons. If you wait until your cause is the one under attack, it may be too late.

Click here to take action!

Regulation of Homeopathic Medicines

Most pharmaceutical drugs are licensed. They’re approved after a process of testing for safety and effectiveness in treating a specific condition or diagnosis. On rare occasion, drugs may be compounded individually according to a doctor’s prescription. Though this is now exceedingly rare to nonexistent, it was once the primary task of a pharmacist. These are referred to as unlicensed drugs in the UK and are regulated differently from drugs that are delivered predefined and packaged by pharmaceutical firms.

Homeopathic medicines, of course, do not operate in the same manner and cannot be tested in the same way as pharmaceutical drugs. They are therefore largely unlicensed. There are a few exceptions, about 50 homeopathic medicines that are licensed under a different plan from pharmaceuticals. Those are often available in stores with indications on them for use in self-limiting and mild conditions, such as colds.

Homeopathic medicines cannot be tested and approved in the manner of pharmaceutical drugs:

  • Pharmaceuticals must be test via in vitro trials, then in vivo trials, and finally random, blinded, placebo-controlled trials.
  • The potential symptoms treatable by homeopathic medicines are identified through an entirely different process called a proving (from the German, prufen, meaning proof).
  • Homeopathic medicines are not applied in the same manner as allopathics, which involves the diagnosis of a particular condition, usually referencing a single body part or function, and usually to suppress symptoms. Homeopathics are applied according to homeopathy’s Law of Similars, with a goal of triggering the body’s innate healing ability.
  • Significantly, homeopathic medicines do not cause the harm that pharmaceuticals do. Therefore, they do not require the same kind of caution as pharmaceutical drugs.

There are thousands of homeopathic medicines, not to mention a virtually infinite variety of potencies in which they can be prescribed. The inherent differences in approach between homeopathy and allopathy means that it’s unreasonable, and frankly absurd, to regulate them in the same manner.

Click here to take action!

Pages: 1  2  3  >>>

Photo by Dan of FreeDigitalPhotos.net.

Related Posts

  • Pingback: Back Door Attack on Homeopathy: Speak Out Now, Or Lose Your Freedom (2) | Gaia Health

  • Flippy

    You have the right to use whatever you want. Not on the NHS though, because that’s for proper evidence-driven medicine.

    • HeidiStevenson

      Are you going to ask your MP to stop the unwarranted limitations on homeopathic medicines to protect people’s right to access the methods they choose?

      • Me

        Why are they unwarranted limitations? And methods of what?

        • HeidiStevenson

          That’s clarified in the article. 

          • Me

             Hmmm…I’ll re-read the article.

            But this did strike me as maybe not quite right:

            “There are a few exceptions, about 50 homeopathic medicines that are
            licensed under a different plan from pharmaceuticals. Those are often
            available in stores with indications on them for use in self-limiting
            and mild conditions, such as colds.”

            I thought there were several hundred registered homeopathic medicines, but I didn’t think they were allowed indications – have I misunderstood?

          • HeidiStevenson

            Yes, that is a misunderstanding. There are thousands of unlicensed homeopathic medicines. Those are the ones that are at issue in this article.

            The 50 or so that are licensed are not at issue here. They’re available without going to a pharmacist or homeopathist and carry labels with indications.

          • Me

            I do appreciate the article is mainly about unlicensed homeopathic medicines, but if there are hundreds of licensed ones, why do you say there are only 50?

            Which ones are allowed indications?

          • HeidiStevenson

            In response to Me’s comment below (I do appreciate the article is mainly about unlicensed homeopathic medicines, but if there are hundreds of licensed ones, why do you say there are only 50?
            Which ones are allowed indications?)

            I don’t know what your problem here is. The article is not “mainly” about unlicensed homeopathic medicines. It is exclusively about them. In context, it’s irrelevant what the licensed ones are or why they’re licensed. 

          • Me

            But it was you who mentioned the licensed medicines in your article, so it wasn’t ‘exclusively’ about unlicensed ones! I thought it was important to understand the balance between the two.

            However, having had a quick glance at the MHRA’s consultation, they say it is just an exercise in consolidating existing laws, so is anything really changing? Or are you saying that the current law isn’t fully implemented or enforced?

          • HeidiStevenson

            In response to Me below:

            But it was you who mentioned the licensed medicines in your article, so it wasn’t ‘exclusively’ about unlicensed ones! I thought it was important to understand the balance between the two. 

            It’s mentioned and pointed out as not relevant. So why are you bringing it up again and again?

            However, having had a quick glance at the MHRA’s consultation, they say it is just an exercise in consolidating existing laws, so is anything really changing? Or are you saying that the current law isn’t fully implemented or enforced? 

            The current law is not only being consolidated. It’s also being revised. It is also not fully implemented. However, it will be this year, because it’s the deadline for complying with an EU directive. So, it matters not whether it’s an addition or just hasn’t been implemented. 

            The point is that the 2012 version of the Medicines Act (which is not yet implemented) includes a statement that excludes most homeopathic medicines. If the 2012 version does, then the one about to be implemented can, too. That’s why, in part 3, it’s clarified what we need to ask for.

          • Me

            Heidi

            Thanks for the clarification – I want to try to understand these things properly before contacting my MP! I’m struggling a bit, but I want to make sure I know more about it that he does!

            I hope you don’t mind if I come back and ask a few more questions as I try to understand it?

            One last question for now. Which EU Directive are you referring to? I can’t see it mentioned in the article.

          • HeidiStevenson

            Reply to Me, below:

            “One last question for now. Which EU Directive are you referring to? I can’t see it mentioned in the article.”

            It isn’t mentioned in the article, and I’d have to do some digging, which I don’t have time to do. In any case, it doesn’t really matter in terms of whether this is acceptable or not. 

  • http://twitter.com/HomeopathyPlus Homeopathy Plus!

    Hi there Heidi – thanks for an informative post.
    Apart from the potential loss of freedom posed by this pending legislation, its economic impact on all Britains would also be significant – as you note in part 2. 
    The recent Breakthrough Growth Champions Report (compiled by credit ratings service, Experian, and commissioned by Santander) identified homeopathy, along with other CAMs, as being one of those “champions” and a major contributor to the country’s economic health and employment. 
    Does the UK government really want to take the country into deeper financial woes through legislation that restricts the contribution of such an economically important stakeholder? 
    Fran Sheffield.

    • Me

       That report sounds interesting – do you have a link to it? Thanks!

      • HeidiStevenson
        • Me

           Thanks Heidi.

          This is just talking about the South West, of course, so it may not be possible to extrapolate to the rest of the country. Also, just because complementary therapies have contributed to past growth, they could have reached saturation and my not be able to sustain that growth. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say what the contribution from homeopathy was.

          Any idea why they included physiotherapy as a complementary therapy?

          But I’ve just realised that the Santander report only looked at businesses ‘turning over between £500,000 and £10m’ so surely they can’t be talking about small homeopathy clinics? Or are there large chains of clinics in the SW that I don’t know about?

          • HeidiStevenson

            I’m not particularly interested in that report. You asked a question, I answered with a link to the info. 

            It’s become quite clear that your goal here is to redirect the discussion away from the issue brought out. If you have nothing further to say on the issue, then please refrain from making irrelevant posts.

          • Me

            I thanked you for supplying that link, but it wasn’t me who brought up the report, was it? It was Fran who did and I responded to Fran so I don’t understand your hostility.

            You’re right, it has nothing directly to do with the topic (other than you mentioned the effects of the new law on businesses, which was what the report seemed to be about, so it wasn’t entirely irrelevant) and I don’t think  anything else needs to be said about it.

  • http://twitter.com/VaccineRisks Vaccine Risks

    I am not a royalist but I do appreciate that the Queen of England is a strong supporter of homeopathy. So is her son Prince Charles, who is known to be unafraid of speaking his mind  in public.There’s surely not much to lose in contacting him! http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/contactus/

    • HeidiStevenson

      Unfortunately, he’s gone completely quiet on the issue.  He also supported the THMPD (Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive), which is resulting in the loss of most herbal remedies to most of us – unless we go through a gatekeeper herbalist. It’s also resulted in the complete loss of TCM and Ayurvedic herbs, including to their practitioners. (If you get any now, it’s because they’ve had them in stock. Once the stock is depleted, that’s the end of it – unless it’s gotten via black market.)

      Sadly, Prince Charles has NOT been supporting alternative medicine for quite some time. In fact, his company, Duchy Originals, has chosen to profit from the THMPD.

      • http://twitter.com/VaccineRisks Vaccine Risks

        Thanks for the information Heidi. Most disappointing.

  • Pingback: Homeopathy Plus

  • Roxanne

    The Swiss government recently looked at the research on homeopathy and concluded that it works and is less expensive than standard care.  Research indicates that homeopathic patients tend to be very satisfied with the results of their treatment.  In times of skyrocketing healthcare costs, the smart government makes sure that homeopathy is available to those who want it.

    In 2003-04 the House of Commons put out a report on the pharmaceutical industry that suggested that the safety of standard drugs and overmedicalization of the population was a concern.  Then Rose Shepherd wrote “Death of the Magic Bullet” (2005) which discussed iatrogenic death from standard drugs.  The pharmaceutical industry and the biomedical community have gone after homeopathy in an attempt to deflect attention from their own serious problems.  They want to limit competition from homeopathy.

  • http://twitter.com/Skepticat_UK Skepticat

    Roxanne wrote, “The Swiss government recently looked at the research on homeopathy and concluded that it works and is less expensive than standard care.”  

    No, the Swiss government didn’t conclude that it works. The Swiss government commissioned a review , as a result of which, they decided not to allow statutory reimbursement for homeopathy after June 2005. However, because a public referendum voted in favour of homeopathy, the government were bound to give it a reprieve. The Swiss government has now set a deadline of 2015 for homeopathy to demonstrate efficacy. If it fails to do so, statutory reimbursement will be withdrawn in 2017.

    If you’re interested in the details, there are reports on zeno’s blog and the quackometer.

    • HeidiStevenson

      You’d better read the blogs of people who’ve actually read the report. Here’s what it said in the discussion section, which summarizes what they found:

      “Many high quality studies of preclinical fundamental research support the homeopathic view that even highly potentized medicines are able to induce specific effects in living organisms. Homeopathic medicines moreover appear to have a regulatory, i.e. balancing or normalizing, effect and possess a specific physical structure.”

      The report stated that 20 of 22 reviews analyzed showed “at least a trend in favor of homeopathy”. 

      No amount of redirection away from what the study reported changes what the study reported. Claims that the government was “bound to give it a reprieve” are based on a desire for that to be true, not on any reality. 

      If you’re going to make claims, you must do better than cite the claims of blogs that make the claims that you want to hear.

      • http://twitter.com/Skepticat_UK Skepticat

        Heidi wrote:

        If you’re going to make claims, you must do better than cite the claims of blogs that make the claims that you want to hear.”Why not? That’s what you’ve done. I don’t need to do any better, Heidi. If you are interested in a truthful report of what happened in Switzerland, you simply have to read the article on Zeno’s blog, which was written by someone who has read the original report. The article is fully referenced and links are helpfully provided.The fact of the matter is that the Swiss government have not concluded that homeopathy works and has given the industry until 2015 to provide efficacy. It makes no difference to me whether you believe that now or whether you wait until 2017, when statutory reimbursement is withdrawn.

        • HeidiStevenson

          You are not offering information. I did – direct from the document you say says the opposite of what I quoted. 
          If you can’t argue for yourself, then you have nothing to say but make unsubstantiated claims, and then say that the reader must go elsewhere to see if what you’ve stated is true. That sounds suspiciously like an attempt to build traffic for those blogs.

          It’s been pointed out once already that you have to do better than that, or there’s no point in commenting. You don’t get another chance. You have done nothing but make claims that you cannot support and were readily disproven in my previous message. 

          Bye.

  • Pingback: Should We Regulate Water Like Alcohol Because They’re Both Liquids? | Gaia Health

Search Gaia Health

Subscribe to the Gaia Health
Newsletter

Don't miss breaking Gaia Health articles.
Rest assured that your e-mail address will never be sold or shared.

newsletter software