Featured

Should We Regulate Water Like Alcohol Because They’re Both Liquids?

May 29, 2012 by admin in Politics with 37 Comments

Regulating homeopathic remedies like pharmaceuticals because they’re both medicines would be like regulating water the same way as alcohol, since they’re both liquids.

Homeopathic remedies are on the verge of being regulated in the same manner as pharmaceuticals in the UK. The reason being used is that they’re both medicines, so they should both be treated in the same manner.

So why isn’t water regulated in the same manner as alcohol? They’re both liquids and they’re both clear.

This is how daft the law is becoming! Classifying two things the same way is now justification for regulating them the same way. The only similarities between pharmaceuticals and homeopathic remedies is their classification:

Pharmaceuticals are known killers. No claim has ever been made that a homeopathic remedy has even done harm, let alone killed someone.
Pharmaceuticals are used to suppress symptoms. Homeopathic remedies are used to trigger the body’s ability to heal itself.
Taking too many pharmaceuticals invariably results in an overdose that can kill. You can’t take too much of a homeopathic remedy.

So what is the reason behind the UK government’s current idiocy in regulating homeopathic remedies as if they were the same thing as pharmaceutical drugs? It is an abrogation of people’s right to access the kind of health care they choose. It is in conflict with the government’s statements that the people’s right to access their chosen health care methods should be respected.

Photo by C Jill Reed, Creative Commons License

There is no legitimate reason to regulate homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs. They do not pose the danger that pharmaceuticals do, so there is no need to protect the public from them. Whether they work or not is debated. However, homeopathy devotees state unequivocally that it heals them. If people wish to avail themselves of homeopathic treatment, by what legitimate reason the government deny them their wish?

Is it necessary to prove that prayer works before we allow people to pray? Of course not! It’s an absurd suggestion.

It’s equally absurd to regulate something both harmless and necessary in the application of a health modality that millions of people utilize. Simply because homeopathic remedies have been placed in the same classification as pharmaceuticals is not a valid reason for regulating them in the same manner.

Nuclear power and matches are both forms of energy. Should they be regulated in the same way?

Act to Save Your Right to Homeopathy Before It’s Too Late!

The government plans to consolidate laws relating to medicine into a single act, the Medicines Act 2012. The current plan is to copy Section 10 of the Medicines Act 1968 into the 2012 act. That section would regulate homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs.

This would result in the loss of most homeopathic remedies to most people in the UK. For more information on this, please see Back Door Attack on Homeopathy: Speak Out Now, Or Lose Your Freedom.

If you’re interested in background information on why this is happening, read Legislation Affecting UK Homeopathy on Homeopathy Heals Me.

Please, write to your Member of Parliament to tell them that you want your access to homeopathic services and medicines to continue as they have for well over a hundred years.

Homeopathic medicines should not be regulated in the same way as pharmaceutical drugs. They are not comparable and should not be treated as if they are.

How to Contact Your MP

It’s not difficult. Even if you don’t know who your MP is, here’s all the information you need to produce a message and send it to the right place:

To send an e-mail, go to the Write to Them website. Just follow the instructions. It will help even if you don’t know your post code!
To send a letter, mail it to:(Your MP’s Name)
The House of Commons
Westminster
London SW1A 0AA
You can obtain your MP’s name and direct contact details by dialing the House of Commons Information Office at 020 7219 4272 or go to the website Find Your MP.

Tagged govern attack on homeopathy, homeopathic remedies, homeopathy law, medicines act 1968, medicines act 2012, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, politics, regulating homeopathic medications, regulating homeopathic remedies

http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir Andy Lewis

Homeopaths make claims to be able to treat illness with their remedies. It is perfectly, reasonable that homeopathic remedies should be subject to the same standards of evidence as pharmaceuticals. That is, that they should be able to demonstrate high quality manufacturing processes, effectiveness and safety.

Whilst it should be easy for homeopathic remedies to demonstrate the inherent safety of their remedies, it is another matter for them to be able to demonstrate effectiveness. Demonstrating effectiveness is vitally important as it shows that patients will not be misled by claims and what they can expect.

I suspect homeopath want special privileges as they do not want to have to subject their remedies to effectiveness testing. They want to be able to make claims without good evidence.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  What a homeopath claims is irrelevant to this topic. Bringing up your views on that point is redirecting away from the issue.
  
  You apparently don’t understand what’s at issue in terms of Section 10 of the Medicines Act 1968. Efficacy is not a factor. Section 10 addresses unlicensed medicines, which is how nearly all homeopathic remedies are classed.
  
  No, special privileges is not the issue. The issue is whether it’s reasonable to regulate homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs. As clearly explained, it is not. It’s like saying that water should be regulated like vodka because they’re both clear liquids.
  - http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir Andy Lewis
    
    Hello Heidi
    
    I am afraid my views are most pertinent to your situation. The truth is that homeopathy has always been treated differently from other products that make medicinal claims. You have had exemptions from having to prove efficacy through the various licensing schemes and have, at most, merely had to show good manufacturing standards in order to get a license.
    
    The issue is not that you are in need of special privileges – you have had them for years – but that that homeopaths have not taken advantage of them, and have failed to register the majority of products. You have been operating a grey area and have been lucky that it was all so confusing.
    
    By consolidating the regulations, the MHRA are bringing into sharp focus your failure to act within the already favourable law. In panic, you are trying to gain even more exemptions.
    
    In a few day, homeopaths will have a stark choice – operate within the law and not prescribe the majority of remedies, or become bandits and disappear in the hope that no-one notices what you do.
    
    But the cat is out of the bag. You have thrown flares up around your distress. And it has not gone unnoticed. The pharmacies in particular were most ill advised to do this. Their professional bodies will be watching.
    
    What do you plan to do? Comply with the law, or become an outlaw?
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      Yes, homeopathy has been treated differently – and for good reason, as is explained above in regard to the remedies used. The only things at issue in this article are the regulation of remedies. Your views on homeopathy in general are not a factor.
      
      The fact is that registering the remedies would have been an insurmountable hurdle in terms of cost. Homeopathy is not rich like Big Pharma.
      
      There has never been any reason put forth for regulating homeopathy or its medicines in the same manner as pharmaceutically-based medicine. Your views on it are not a factor in this. It doesn’t matter if you do or do not like homeopathy. You have not shown any reason why homeopathic remedies should be regulated in the same manner.
      
      Without demonstrating a need to regulate homeopathic medicines, there is no legitimate reason to do so.
      
      I am not a practicing homeopath, so your question is irrelevant.
      
      Your comments have, thus far, not been relevant to the issue presented in the article. If you can’t stay on the topic, then don’t try to comment.
      - http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir Andy Lewis
        
        OK. Let’s make a case for regulating homeopathic products.
        
        Homeopathic products are substances that are in the main orally ingested. Their preparations often involve highly dangerous substances.
        
        Correct preparation and control is vital if that product is to be safe. What makes you think homeopathic manufacturers need to be exempt from demonstrating their manufacturing process is of high quality?
        
        Homeopathic preparations are sold with explicit or implied indications. If these are incorrect, a person may purchase these remedies and not gain the benefit claimed. The customer would have been misled in this case. In the case, of serious illness, the customer may have been deprived of more effective options, which could lead to harm or even death.
        
        What is it about homeopathic remedies that you feel excludes them from having to show that the associated claims of effectiveness are indeed correct?
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        In point of fact, preparation of homeopathic remedies are regulated for their proper preparation under Good Manufacturing Process law.
        
        No, the homeopathic preparations in question are not sole with any indications. They are unlicensed. Obviously, you are unaware of the facts of the issue.
        
        You have gone astray again by bringing up a superfluous idea about whether a practitioner misleads a patient. It’s not relevant to the topic. You’ve been warned once about straying from the issue and will get no more warnings.I’ve explained quite clearly what there’s no legitimate reason to regulate them in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs.
        
        Every argument you’ve put forth is invalid. You have not demonstrated in any way why homeopathic remedies should be regulated in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs.
      - Peter Thingy
        
        One reason for regulating homeopathic remedies as medicines is that the manufacturers think they are medicines. Doubly true when you take the big European manufacturers into account.
        
        What is causing real problems is the interaction with non-medically qualified homeopaths (to use Peter Morrell’s terminology). Doctors who do homeopathy are not affected in the slightest.
      - http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir Andy Lewis
        
        Homeopathic remedies are sold with a purpose.
        
        At the most basic, homeopathic remedies are supposed to have “symptom pictures”.
        
        Can you guarantee that all remedies have been accurately assessed? That there are no mistakes in your MM? Is it not quite reasonable, even of homeopathic terms that remedies sold or dispensed to the public are tested objectively that they do what they intend to do?
      - Peter Thingy
        
        The cost issue is a red herring. It isn’t an insurmountable hurdle. It is true that rarely used remedies would not justify the cost of registration but they would still be obtainable via various routes.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        It is insurmountable. The homeopathic pharmacies involved were unable to mount that kind of money in the time involved. It is no longer possible to register them in that manner.
- http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir Andy Lewis
  
  Hello Heidi
  
  I am afraid my views are most pertinent to your situation. The truth is that homeopathy has always been treated differently from other products that make medicinal claims. You have had exemptions from having to prove efficacy through the various licensing schemes and have, at most, merely had to show good manufacturing standards in order to get a license.
  
  The issue is not that you are in need of special privileges – you have had them for years – but that that homeopaths have not taken advantage of them, and have failed to register the majority of products. You have been operating a grey area and have been lucky that it was all so confusing.
  
  By consolidating the regulations, the MHRA are bringing into sharp focus your failure to act within the already favourable law. In panic, you are trying to gain even more exemptions.
  
  In a few day, homeopaths will have a stark choice – operate within the law and not prescribe the majority of remedies, or become bandits and disappear in the hope that no-one notices what you do.
  
  But the cat is out of the bag. You have thrown flares up around your distress. And it has not gone unnoticed. The pharmacies in particular were most ill advised to do this. Their professional bodies will be watching.
  
  What do you plan to do? Comply with the law, or become an outlaw?
Peter Thingy

It’s a more complicated question than your simplistic example suggests.

Would you regulate water that was claimed to be vodka in the same way as you would regulate vodka itself? No, but passing off water as vodka would fall foul of a whole series of consumer protection laws.

With the exception of Nelsons’ Bach Flower Remedies (which have PLRs), flower remedies are treated as food and not subject to medicines regulation. It could be argued that if the issue of EU Directives could be overcome, homeopathic remedies could be regulated in the same way BUT, and this is a big but, claims that a remedy could be used for a specific condition or systematic relief of symptoms, would certain cause the legislation that covers the advertising of medicines to come into play, especially when serious conditions are involved.

Claims such as “Drosera – No. 1 remedy for Whooping Cough” would fall foul of the law even if homeopathy remedies were regulated as food.

Whatever you might believe about how homeopathic remedies work, it is the putative end result that matters.

It is obvious that you did not study J T Kent very well. More than once he spoke of using homeopathy to euthanise.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  None of that has anything to do with the issue at hand.
  
  Regarding Kent, I am familiar with his work. His claim does not make it so – and no one has ever shown that a homeopathic remedy has caused harm.
  
  Bach Remedies have nothing to do with this topic. Advertising regulations have nothing to do with this issue.
  
  Claims about the use of homeopathic remedies are irrelevant because the ones at question are unlicensed and carry no indications.
  
  Passing off water as vodka is utterly irrelevant to the topic. It’s an issue of fraud, not regulation of water itself.
  - Peter Thingy
    
    So what do you suggest in the way of regulation?
    
    No regulation whatsoever? I don’t see that as a realistic proposition. If you wish increased exemptions for homeopathic remedies, there would have to be some sort of test enshrined in legislation.
    
    And flower remedies ARE relevant in that declassifying homeopathic remedies as medicines turns them into food products.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      Leave it as it has been. Homeopathic remedies have not been known to harm anyone. It is, therefore, unreasonable to start regulating them.
      
      Flower remedies are being treated differently. They are, therefore, not a part of this particular issue, which is about products classified as unlicensed.
      - Peter Thingy
        
        But they ARE regulated and have been since 1971 if not before. What there has been is a de facto benign tolerance on the part of the MHRA, GPhC and predecessor regulators.
        
        Whilst I am perfectly happy to debate the abstract, ideological issues associated with this problem with anyone I have not seen any practical, immediate solutions to the problem that the lay homeopathic organisations and the homeopathic pharmacies have dug themselves into.
        
        I understand legislation and regulations well enough to know that there but the solutions are so radical that they would sit very badly with the innate conservatism of homeopathy.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        The fact is, as you’ve noted, that the law has not been enforced – and it hasn’t resulted in anyone being harmed by a homeopathic product. You have, therefore, given an excellent argument that they should not be so regulated.
        
        Your arguments are scattered all over the place. I won’t disagree that the homeopaths have been negligent in not addressing this issue head on in the first place. However, that does not justify the regulation of homeopathic remedies as if they were pharmaceutical drugs.
        
        This is your second warning to stay on topic.
Pingback: Regulating two different products in the same manner makes no sense « homeopathiccures
Pingback: Regulating two different products in the same manner makes no sense | Homeopathy for the Family
Pingback: Regulating two different products in the same manner makes no sense | Accesshealing's Blog
HeidiStevenson

Peter Thingy wrote:

“One reason for regulating homeopathic remedies as medicines is that the manufacturers think they are medicines. Doubly true when you take the big European manufacturers into account.

“What is causing real problems is the interaction with non-medically qualified homeopaths (to use Peter Morrell’s terminology). Doctors who do homeopathy are not affected in the slightest.”

No, that is not a reason for regulating them. That does not justify it. If they do no harm, then there’s no reason to regulate them.

It’s true that the NHS is not affected – though there is a determined effort to end it in the NHS. However, no one has demonstrated that there’s any reason to prefer MDs over lay homeopaths. The issue is that millions of people who use their own money to obtain the services of a homeopath and utilize their remedies will be denied the right to do so. When no one has launched a legitimate argument for such regulation.

It goes back to the point made in the beginning: Just because vodka and water are both liquids does not mean that they should be regulated in the same manner.

You have taken this off-topic and I’ve been patient. The issue here is one thing only: the regulation of homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs. If you cannot keep within the subject, then do not make any further comments.
DebbyBruck

Thank you for posting news, Heidi. Here’s a conversation about this issue. http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/forum/topics/sign-petition-to-help-uk-citizens-access-to-homeopathy
HeidiStevenson

Andy Lewis wrote:

“Homeopathic remedies are sold with a purpose.
At the most basic, homeopathic remedies are supposed to have “symptom pictures”.
Can you guarantee that all remedies have been accurately assessed? That there are no mistakes in your MM? Is it not quite reasonable, even of homeopathic terms that remedies sold or dispensed to the public are tested objectively that they do what they intend to do?”

Not one of those questions is relevant to the issue. The issue is whether there’s any reason to regulate homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs. Your questions are specific to how homeopathy approaches medicine. They are not related to how pharmaceutical drugs are tested – nor do they have anything to do with unlicensed medicines, which is the issue at hand. Homeopathic remedies are being classified as unlicensed medicines. Therefore, your point is not relevant.

It also further demonstrates that you do not understand the issue. Homeopathic remedies are being classified as unlicensed medicines. They are placed behind a wall as if they implied the same kind of risk as pharmaceuticals, making access to them available only through state-licensed practitioners. Thus, they are no longer directly available to the people. It’s reasonable to do this with pharmaceuticals because they have been shown over and over to be very dangerous, and even with these protections they kill hundreds of thousands of people. Homeopathic remedies have never been shown to do harm.

Just one more point: You are demanding that even more rigid standards be placed on homeopathic remedies than pharmaceuticals by asking for a guarantee that they be tested objectively or accurately assessed. That is never true of pharmaceuticals, as they are tested by those who hope to profit from them.

You have made no arguments that justify treating homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceuticals – of putting them behind a wall, making access to them difficult, virtually impossible for most people. Instead, you persist in trying to redirect discussion away from the issue. You were warned twice before that not debating on the specific issue at hand would not be tolerated.
- Andy Lewis
  
  OK. I appear to be banging my head against a wall.
  
  Let us try another approach.
  
  Do you think the practice of homeopathy carries risks of any sort?
  
  If not, how do you justify this as it would be unique in human affairs.
  
  If so, what are the nature of the risks. And, how should regulation be used to minimise the risk to the public?
  
  I would argue that claims that homeopathic remedies can treat illness be treated like any other product and that manufacturers should have to demonstrate evidence of effectiveness, safety and good manufacturing process.
http://twitter.com/Majikthyse Les Rose

The reason for regulating products which make medical claims is to protect the public from claims which are not supported by evidence. Evidence comes from tests. The Medicines Act says that anything which makes a medical claim is a medicine. Therefore it must be tested. If homeopaths and their supporters are saying that they do not make any medical claims, then of what value are their remedies?

But I hold out no hope at all that such a simple and logical argument will either be understood or accepted by the homeopathy camp – judging by comments so far here.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Sorry, but that doesn’t work. With a few small exceptions (which are not at issue here), homeopathic remedies are being classed as UNLICENSED medicines, along with some pharmaceuticals. The issue of medical claims is irrelevant to the topic, because it does not apply to unlicensed pharmaceuticals, either.
  
  Therefore, your nice simple argument is irrelevant. You clearly do not understand the issue here.
Bar Will

The point isn’t that homepathic remedies are harmless – we all agree they’re harmless. The idea is to protect people against spending money on medications that do not work. Diverting them from medications that do work. Providing them with false hope. You know, all that well-meaning but fundamentally deceptive stuff.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  No, that isn’t correct. It may be what you want to believe, but it is not relevant to this issue. The reason is that homeopathic remedies are to be regulated as unlicensed medicines. There is no requirement that unlicensed medicines carry any claims or proof of efficacy.
  
  Therefore, your argument is irrelevant.
Mcchino64

If the aim of the homeopath is for their treatments to be recognised with the same legitmacy as conventional pharmaceutical remedies then surely they should welcome these proposals with open arms. The polar opposite stance offered in this article therefore is puzzling. Perhaps this may even make more people susceptible to the placebo effect mechanism by which homeopathy can only operate. I can only conclude then that such opposition is based in the hinderance such regulations would impose on the peddling of homeopathy in high street shops.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  You can assume all you want about what homeopaths do or don’t want – but it isn’t the issue here.
  
  The question is whether there’s any legitimate reason to regulate them in the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs in the unlicensed category.
  
  You would be right about the issue of hindrance in access to homeopathic remedies. It’s an issue of great importance to the millions of people who currently use homeopathy. Whether you agree or disagree with it is not relevant. They want to use them and they are willing to pay for homeopathic advice out of their own pockets. There is no legitimate basis for removing that right from the people.
  
  This is, at its heart, an issue of civil rights. If no harm can be shown in the use of something, then there is no legitimate reason to limit access to it.
  - Mcchino64
    
    The type of ailments (I personally would be willing to concede) it may be within moral bounds to encourage homeopathy as a remedy for surely have pharmaceutical based treatments that I have to pay for; either from off the shelf or through my perscription fee (since I live in England). I don’t feel that my human rights are violated because of this. Your argument stems from a point of view regarding the harmfulness of homeopathy but there are many instances where policy on drugs is not representative of the harm they may cause e.g. the whole ecstacy safer than riding a horse Prof. Nutt sacking debacle. ‘Harm’ is a sliding scale in any case since different drugs may yield a variety of effects on different people yet are classified in one bracket. I feel that if homepaths want legitimacy (which I agree it can have vis a vis the placebo effect) they may have to fall in line with the medicines they feel their treatment is competitive with. you can’t have your cake and eat it too type argument. Will this really deprive people if they’re so determined?
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      It isn’t up to you to decide what is and isn’t moral in terms of using homeopathy.
      
      The fact is that the rights of the millions who use homeopathy, including many who say that it has saved their lives, are abrogated. Just because you aren’t losing anything that you value does not give you the right to make a judgement about whether others have the right to it. To suggest otherwise is hubris of the worst sort – and also begs the question of who you expect to stand up for something you care about when the government tries to take it away.
      
      Now, that’s as far off topic on this issue that will be allowed. The issue is whether there is any legitimate reason to regulate homeopathic remedies in the same manner as pharmaceuticals. Please, do not continue to comment unless you can stay on topic – and do not repeat what others have already said. I don’t have time for illegitimate debate.
      - Mcchino64
        
        the reflection of morality in policy isn’t up to me (or you); it is up to a regulatory body. This is probably why many other commentators who you have told are speaking irrelevances are discussing efficacy because it IS relevant. If you want to believe homeopathy has some unknown but non-placebo type mechanism then that’s fine for minor ailments, but your ‘choice’ should be taken away from you if you’re foolish to attempt to neglect proven medicines for homeopathy for more serious conditions (or worse prescribe them). Homeopathy needs regulation to save you from yourself.
        
        I refer you to my previous post to contest your arguments regarding ‘harm’, which appears to be the only metric that you are willing to debate on.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        As pointed out, you are not discussing the issue brought out in this article.
        
        Efficacy is not a factor in medicines labeled as unlicensed, which is how homeopathic remedies are classified. Unlicensed pharmaceuticals do not have to meet a standard of efficacy, so that is not at issue here. It is, therefore, not related to this article.
        
        Your hubris is blatant. You presume to tell others that they need to be saved from themselves. You are telling normally intelligent people that they don’t have the right to make their own decisions about how to manage their health.
Dr Drew Burdett

I think the real danger for homoeopathy is that more people will discover how silly it is.

So thanks for

a) implying that it only works due to the “placebo effect” and
b) suggesting that there is no difference between a homoeopathic remedy and a bottle of mineral water.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  This comment is absurd. There is no implication that homeopathy works through a placebo effect, nor was there any suggestion that there’s no difference between homeopathic remedies and water.
  
  Willful twisting of what people say is typical of those who would choose to refuse people the right to choose homeopathy. It’s pure hubris, an assumption that you have the right to make decisions for others, an assumption that you’re more intelligent or knowledgeable or mature or rational. However, your misrepresentations of what was written in the article clarifies that there’s no good intention on your part, but only a desire to be superior to others and to control their lives. Apparently, there’s something significant missing in your life that you have the need to lord it over others.
  - Dr Drew Burdett
    
    A claim was made in the above article that it doesn’t matter if it works or not, just that people say they feel better afterwards.
    
    It is also clearly implied that there are no associated health risks, which seems odd for a something which is supposed to have an active effect on a persons body. Is the implication not that it is harmless because it is pure water?
    
    And lets be clear: I don’t think people are silly for taking homoeopathy. But the idea that homoepathy works, by the mechanisms suggested, and that the rest of biology, physics and chemistry have got it wrong is very silly indeed.
    
    Homoeopathy is anti-science and I have the best of intentions in pointing this out.
    
    My personal character flaws are irrelevent.
    
    And really – blocking people is not going to strengthen your argument.