Comments on: The MHRA and the Labeling of Homeopathic Products http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:47:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: MHRA accused of “clothing naked quackery” | The Quackometer http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-15915 MHRA accused of “clothing naked quackery” | The Quackometer Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:52:33 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-15915 [...] has an evidence base and the other is fantasy. The MHRA appear to adopt labelling policies that deliberately obscure the nature of homeopathic remedies and give ‘approval marks’ to unproven herbal [...] [...] has an evidence base and the other is fantasy. The MHRA appear to adopt labelling policies that deliberately obscure the nature of homeopathic remedies and give ‘approval marks’ to unproven herbal [...]

]]> By: How to Spot Bad Regulation of Alternative Medicine. | The Quackometer http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-14354 How to Spot Bad Regulation of Alternative Medicine. | The Quackometer Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:43:47 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-14354 [...] MHRA made a serious mistake in 2006 by allowing homeopathic product manufacturers to make claims about effectiveness, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of tradition. As you might, guess the homeopaths [...] [...] MHRA made a serious mistake in 2006 by allowing homeopathic product manufacturers to make claims about effectiveness, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of tradition. As you might, guess the homeopaths [...]

]]> By: Greg Smith http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-14271 Greg Smith Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:10:27 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-14271 I suggest a multiple-choice question be added, to test the comprehension of "30C": "30C" Dilution is roughly equivalent to mixing 1 ml of ingredient with *what* amount of water? (a) 30 Liters (b) An olympic-size swimming pool (c) Lake Ontario (d) All of the oceans of the Earth (e) A sphere of water large enough to contain the entire solar system (f) A sphere of water 100 light years in diameter The answer is (f). [131 light years more accurately, but at this point it hardly matters] I suggest a multiple-choice question be added, to test the comprehension of “30C”:

“30C” Dilution is roughly equivalent to mixing 1 ml of ingredient with *what* amount of water?
(a) 30 Liters
(b) An olympic-size swimming pool
(c) Lake Ontario
(d) All of the oceans of the Earth
(e) A sphere of water large enough to contain the entire solar system
(f) A sphere of water 100 light years in diameter

The answer is (f). [131 light years more accurately, but at this point it hardly matters]

]]> By: NRudd http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-14206 NRudd Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:41:19 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-14206 Wow! So pleased to discover your great article. I'd already written to the MHRA on this exact issue having watched O'Brien and Professor Woods give their evidence (a shocking performance). I've added the summary of my response to the MHRA's recent request for feedback on their regulation of labels, below. You'll note their new wording seems still to mislead us about the nature of homeopathic products. Again, nice article - many thanks (the link to the hearing video is broken: this seems to work http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/player.aspx?meetingid=5257 Regards. Email to MHRA RE: Comment on the "Review of Medicines Act 1968: informal consultation on issues relating to the PLR regime and homeopathy" section 25. In section 25 (of their document) the MHRA considers the scope for label information to be made more specific, particularly for the benefit of those consumers who may be less familiar with the nature of homeopathy and the MHRA proposes the following wording: “A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety, quality and use within the homeopathic tradition” As a non medical person, without detailed knowledge of homeopathic medicines, I am totally unable to deuce from this wording that the product has no scientifically proven effects (beyond the placebo effect). In fact it feels as if its saying its safe and meets significant quality standards. Is it the intention that the wording should leave me in the dark regarding the product's usefulness? Can I suggest any proposed wording includes the sentence below, which makes sense to me, and would seem to comply with the 1992 Directive 92/73/EC "This product has no scientifically proven benefits." Regards, Wow! So pleased to discover your great article. I’d already written to the MHRA on this exact issue having watched O’Brien and Professor Woods give their evidence (a shocking performance). I’ve added the summary of my response to the MHRA’s recent request for feedback on their regulation of labels, below. You’ll note their new wording seems still to mislead us about the nature of homeopathic products.

Again, nice article – many thanks (the link to the hearing video is broken: this seems to work http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/player.aspx?meetingid=5257

Regards.

Email to MHRA
RE: Comment on the “Review of Medicines Act 1968: informal consultation on issues relating to the PLR regime and homeopathy” section 25.

In section 25 (of their document) the MHRA considers the scope for label information to be made more specific, particularly for the benefit of those consumers who may be less familiar with the nature of homeopathy and the MHRA proposes the following wording:

“A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety, quality and use within the homeopathic tradition”

As a non medical person, without detailed knowledge of homeopathic medicines, I am totally unable to deuce from this wording that the product has no scientifically proven effects (beyond the placebo effect). In fact it feels as if its saying its safe and meets significant quality standards.

Is it the intention that the wording should leave me in the dark regarding the product’s usefulness?

Can I suggest any proposed wording includes the sentence below, which makes sense to me, and would seem to comply with the 1992 Directive 92/73/EC

“This product has no scientifically proven benefits.”

Regards,

]]> By: Ensign Crusher http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-14159 Ensign Crusher Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:26:24 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-14159 "To begin with the fact that this is a homeopathic remedy, we are making provision for a group of people who believe in homeopathic remedies..." Prof Woods should probably get a grip on reality. Medicine, in fact NOTHING, should be based on belief. Enough with the appeal to emotions, we should only ever examine the facts. No authorities, no appeals to ignorance, no slippery slopes, no logical fallacies. I know it's a hard habit to kick, the habit of belief, but hey, it's not like Arnica Montana 30C could possibly be addictive. Basing our lives of logic and facts is not going to diminish humanity-- we will still have our emotions; we won't be cold, we'll be smart! For those who agree with me, I recommend you take a look at this article: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/10_jul_aug/Trent.html It seems as if the same applies in England, and Canada, the world, really. Sad. “To begin with the fact that this is a homeopathic remedy, we are making provision for a group of people who believe in homeopathic remedies…”

Prof Woods should probably get a grip on reality. Medicine, in fact NOTHING, should be based on belief. Enough with the appeal to emotions, we should only ever examine the facts. No authorities, no appeals to ignorance, no slippery slopes, no logical fallacies. I know it’s a hard habit to kick, the habit of belief, but hey, it’s not like Arnica Montana 30C could possibly be addictive. Basing our lives of logic and facts is not going to diminish humanity– we will still have our emotions; we won’t be cold, we’ll be smart! For those who agree with me, I recommend you take a look at this article:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/10_jul_aug/Trent.html

It seems as if the same applies in England, and Canada, the world, really.
Sad.

]]> By: David Farmbrough http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-11791 David Farmbrough Sun, 09 May 2010 06:22:48 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-11791 A fair question would be about one the key word in any labelling of such a product "Homeopathic". To ensure the public understands the labelling, they ought to be asked "This is a homeopathic pill. What do you understand by the word 'homeopathic'?" A fair question would be about one the key word in any labelling of such a product “Homeopathic”. To ensure the public understands the labelling, they ought to be asked “This is a homeopathic pill. What do you understand by the word ‘homeopathic’?”

]]> By: MHRA, homeopatija in regulacija « MEDICINSKI BLOG http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-11023 MHRA, homeopatija in regulacija « MEDICINSKI BLOG Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:01:40 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-11023 [...] VEČ: The MHRA and their Double Failure over Homeopathy [...] [...] VEČ: The MHRA and their Double Failure over Homeopathy [...]

]]> By: BSM http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-9258 BSM Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:42:17 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-9258 I'm even more angry at the MHRA now. I have made submissions to them and their veterinary equivalent the VMD and the tone of all their requests for submissions and statements in response was very much along the lines of "big boys...oops...Europe made us do it", i.e. We know it's bollocks but our political masters have tied our hands. <br /><br />I never knew such testing existed. This makes things much worse. The referee may have awarded an I'll-advised free-kick, but the regulators have placed the ball on the penalty spot the blindfolded and bound the goalkeeper.<br /><br />Remind me, who was the bloke sitting on the left of the witness panel (from our perspective looking at them). His 'careful' responses to tricky questions seemed to give the same impresssion of trying not to offend incompetent political masters. <br /><br />This really is an example of what happens when scientists are focused on bureaucratic career-progression than acting as independent advisors. It makes an inteesting contrast with the actions of David Nutt and his colleagues. I'm even more angry at the MHRA now. I have made submissions to them and their veterinary equivalent the VMD and the tone of all their requests for submissions and statements in response was very much along the lines of "big boys…oops…Europe made us do it", i.e. We know it's bollocks but our political masters have tied our hands.

I never knew such testing existed. This makes things much worse. The referee may have awarded an I'll-advised free-kick, but the regulators have placed the ball on the penalty spot the blindfolded and bound the goalkeeper.

Remind me, who was the bloke sitting on the left of the witness panel (from our perspective looking at them). His 'careful' responses to tricky questions seemed to give the same impresssion of trying not to offend incompetent political masters.

This really is an example of what happens when scientists are focused on bureaucratic career-progression than acting as independent advisors. It makes an inteesting contrast with the actions of David Nutt and his colleagues.

]]> By: Fugue.State http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-9212 Fugue.State Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:21:41 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-9212 How would a regulator test to see if the claims of the active ingredient in question 8 were true? How would a regulator test to see if the claims of the active ingredient in question 8 were true?

]]> By: AndyN http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/01/mhra-and-labelling-of-homeopathic.html#comment-9211 AndyN Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:14:10 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2010/01/the-mhra-and-the-labeling-of-homeopathic-products.html#comment-9211 In answer to Q211, I noticed that Professor Woods states that Homeopathic treatments should only be allowed to make claims on their packaging within...<br /><br />> a system which only allows for claims <br />> in relation to minor, self-limiting illnesses,<br /><br />Surely, it's in these exact situations where self deception and confirmation bias result in people believing that Homeopathic treatments work, which in turn leads to a larger following of the practice? (A reason he gives for allowing the continued government funding)<br /><br />In his next sentence he talks about how quickly they're able to remove products with cancer curing and malaria prevention claims on their packaging. Does he seriously not see the connection in allowing this pseudoscience to infiltrate mainstream medicine, with people starting to believe the more ridiculous claims of it's practitioners? In answer to Q211, I noticed that Professor Woods states that Homeopathic treatments should only be allowed to make claims on their packaging within…

> a system which only allows for claims
> in relation to minor, self-limiting illnesses,

Surely, it's in these exact situations where self deception and confirmation bias result in people believing that Homeopathic treatments work, which in turn leads to a larger following of the practice? (A reason he gives for allowing the continued government funding)

In his next sentence he talks about how quickly they're able to remove products with cancer curing and malaria prevention claims on their packaging. Does he seriously not see the connection in allowing this pseudoscience to infiltrate mainstream medicine, with people starting to believe the more ridiculous claims of it's practitioners?

]]>