Homeopathic Quality Control – It’s Nonexistent

The inspection report results in:

We’re sorry, but you do not have access to this document. That’s all we know.

It would be great to see it – thanks – Danny

They could hire a wand waving wizard from Hogwash or a disciple of Lord Fooledthemmore to perform QC spells on nonrandom samples from the production line. That makes as much sense as the product does.

Here’s some manufacturing advice that might help Nelsons:

General Cleanliness and contamination prevention whilst medicating

It’s from Nelsons’ competitor, Helios, but I’m sure they won’t mind.

How can a purchaser be sure their chosen remedy has not been contaminated by homeopathically prepared horse meat?

Manufacturers must reassure us.

But unbeknown to them, the journalist at the heart of the story had faked both the footage of the break-in at the pill factory and had also set up a fake homeopathy clinic, place b. The hospital had been tricked into using place b as the source of emergency remedies believing the story that it had received the hospital’s original supplies in error. So, when the hospital had been claiming ineffective pills, it had indeed been receiving the genuine product, and when it has been claiming renewed success, it has in fact been using blank sugar pills as supplied by the journalist.

Archie Cochrane once played a similar trick on some cardiologists in real life.

One could hope that the MHRA are stung into action by this damning article. But hope is probably futile.

The reason for their spineless inactivity may just be overload. The massive documentation demanded of real medicines can be overwhelming, running into tens of thousands of pages. Given the secrecy within which the MHRA works it is difficult to ascertain just how they allocate their time.

It’s Christopher Brookmyre, not Brookmyer.

Your instance that the MHRA should some how single out Nelsons needs to be considered in context.
Let me enlighten you. In the most recent MHRA annual review of inspection deficiency data covering 303 inspections there were 26 critical findings and 644 major findings.
The definition of a critical finding is:
‘A deficiency which has produced, or leads to a significant risk of producing either a product which is harmful to the human or veterinary patient.’
The MHRA would therefore regard this deficiency as Major as the deficiency is not a threat to human health.
If the MHRA had found this deficiency then it would have been 1 of 640+ deficiencies found in several 100 pharmaceutical companies.
If however we take this deficiency as a critical in the same way it would be for a pharmaceutical company cocking up drug manufacture then production would be stopped until an exaustive process took place. None of the 26 companies with critical deficiencies would be shut down though unless there was no action or continued similar problems found with the inspection that follows critical findings.
Why should Nelsons then be singled out for special treatment?

By the way I was waiting to see what sting you managed to come up with. You managed to milk what you got pretty well but I still dont see the end of homeopathy. I am becoming impatient Alan.

I like observation 1 b) – where it notes they actively observed 1 in 6 of the homeopathic preparations not receiving any ‘active homeopathic drug solution’ as it dripped down the outside of the bottle due to the manufacturing process. Genius. That’s one way to ensure it’s really been diluted to the point nothing is in there….

Of course, you are leaving out the most obvious way of producing effective, quality controlled homeopathic remedies, which is childishly simple.

Take a supply of chalk pills and a bottling machine. Set the production line up to put pills into bottles, and seal them. Then, as the stock control system demands, label these bottle of inert pills as needed and as they leave the labelling machine, wave a bottle of the potentising agent at them in a significant manner (whilst trying not to look like a complete pillock in the process).

I believe this method ought to remove most of the objections raised…

The use of the Law of Similars must require some small amount of magical “quivering”. Is this available in unlimited quantities, or is it being used up? Paper remedies must require a at least an equivalent amount of “quivering”. The MHRA cannot possibly find deficiencies in production lines if it does not have a wizard on staff; otherwise, how can the potentizing be determined to be sufficient to be effective.

Homeopathy offers endless possibilities for farcical musings. Imagination seems to be the only limit.

“Pills are made from sucrose by the way.”

Yes. And nothing but sucrose. No active ingredients, no medication, no trace of anything but sugar.

Beside the paper remedy “theory,” homeoquacks believe if you put one “active” sugar ball in a vial with plain, untreated sugar balls, that one ball will transfer its magic power to all the others in the vial. So why do they even need to keep making the stuff? Just make more with one ball left over from the previous batch.

It’s like a baker or beer brewer who keeps regenerating the same strain of yeast based on a small original culture. Some breweries are using yeast cultures than go back hundreds of years.

I even saw a little hand-held gun that “manufacturers” homeoquackic pills by merely speaking the name of the desired remedy into the machine.

C’mon, even branwashed homeoquacks don’t believe all this stuff, do they?

Dr. Rawlins,

I’ve always wondered if there is anything that it TOO outrageous for even woomeisters to believe. For instance, would a homeoquack look at reiki and say to himself, “OK, that’s just too ridiculous for even me to believe. It’s just hand-waving!”? Or would a reiki “master” look at healing crystals and say to himself “OK, that’s just too far-fetched”?

I know part of it is cognitive dissonance, and part of it is economic. Reiki might be competition to homeoquacks (why even take a sugar pill if someone can wave their hands over you and cure you?) but since homeoquacks like to invoke “science” I wonder what woo falls outside even their strained limits of credibility. John of God, maybe?

Generally though, purveyors of all kinds of competing woo form some sort of unholy alliance and band together to fight the evil Big Pharma.

But a machine that makes pills just by speaking in the name of the remedy? What science can they possibly invoke to justify/rationalize that?

Sorry about the John of god reference. (Have you ever checked that guy out, by the way?) We usually call him John of Fraud on other blogs.

I see a whole new category of homeopath: the Pill Whisperer. Just whisper what you want the pill to do and it does it.

Of course none of us can understand the mechanism of action of homeopathy because it’s so advanced, it’s quantum, it’s a new paradigm that nothing science has developed so far can explain or prove it. A new paradigm that was dreamt up in the late 1700s. Before medicine even existed. R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

I take it grumpycat is a homeoquack?

Greetings from Down Under,

I’ve just finished reading the FDA report (Such a pity their founding act bars them from actually testing if the stuff works.), it makes for interesting and scary reading, especially the comment that they don’t even test for microbe contamination of the product, damp sugar is the perfect medium for all kinds of nasties.

Here’s a thought… IF the pills WEREN’T all bottled in advance and labeled after the fact… they could make the pills different colors. I wonder why nobody thought of that? Oh wait… I forgot about the “IF” part…

I’m surprised there hasn’t been more of a focus on the risk of broken glass entering the pills (a side-effect of all that clever succussion?).

Perhaps it is indeed the case that Boots, Holland & Barrett, MHRA, etc. are entirely aware of the lack of evidence for homeopathy (they certainly should be) and that there is a form of gentleman’s agreement not to rock the boat as long as there is consumer demand for sugar pills. But sugar pills with added glass are a direct health risk.

I know nothing of the MHRA inspection deficiency seriousness ratings, but I can’t imagine that a “proper-pharma” manufacturer with the same issue on their production line would continue to be approved by the regulator. So it seems very odd that MHRA would decline to investigate an issue where their US counterpart has specifically identified a risk of glass contamination in homeopathic pills.

Incidentally, it’s no surprise that a chemist like Boots would continue to cynically sell woo: have you been in a chemist’s shop recently? Other than 90% of the stuff behind the counter, they are veritable temples of new age nonsense. Presumably it’s “just economics” rather than genuine cluelessness about what they’re selling.

Another way of explaining ‘homeopathy’ is ‘fraud in a bottle’.

One of the greatest cons of modern times, is homeopathy, and they do it so blatantly and cleverly by announcing that there’s actually nothing but water or sugar in what you just paid $150 for (at least, those are the outrageous prices in Australia).

But first, they’ll want to take a ‘full assessment’ of your health before they flog you their useless wares – and their ‘full assessment’ costs – if you please – no less than between $80-$120 (again, in Australia, the land of highway robbery).

Of course they need to make their money up front, because they know you’ll still be as sick as you were before you came to them once you sample their bottled water/sugar pills.

How better to fool the public and empty their wallets than by telling the truth followed by a lie – eg “Oh there’s nothing in it, but it works!”.

Snake oil salesmen. Can we get them off the streets please?