Them chaps at the Quackometer really should read Hahnemann.
Do read this: http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_org6.htm
Now to the new Quackometer blog entry, which obviously lacks some important facts.:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/02/dispensing-with-homeopathy-proposal.html[*QUOTE*]
-------------------------------------------------------
The Quackometer
Dispensing with Homeopathy: A ProposalWednesday, February 03, 2010
Let’s run with an idea and see where it goes.
The 10:23 campaign has now had loads of publicity and Boots have failed to address any of the central concerns: mainly, that homeopathy is a daft pseudoscience. Moreover, the pharmacy profession and the drugs regulator have remained silent.
In all likelihood, Boots will not withdraw their sugar pills and pharmacists will continue to take your money in exchange for pseudo-medicine. An immediate capitulation was never on the cards – the world does not work like that. But the Boots brand has been damaged as thousands of people have become aware of just what they are prepared to sell you in order to make money.
And let us also take on board the homeopaths argument that banning homeopathy would ‘restrict customer choice’. (Even though 10:23 did not seek to ‘ban’ homeopathy, only remove it from the pharmacy counter and, perhaps, into the health food shop next to the crystals.)
The campaign was really about making sure people understood what homeopathy is: it is not a herbal medicine, as herbs are often not used and any content gets diluted to the point where there is often nothing left. You are buying sugar pills that have had ritual magic performed on them.
As I have said, the villains here are the medicine regulators who allow deceptive labelling of these products. The MHRA say that they test the labels to make sure the public understand what they are buying. This is not true, as their recent submission to the House of Commons revealed. Nothing in their testing asked if customers understood they were buying pills that stated they contained an ingredient but that actually contained nothing, and that there was no reason to believe the pills did anything other than act as a placebo.
The legal blogger Jack of Kent has done a superb job of deconstructing the language on the labels.
Other industries have to battle with the problem with how to convey important information to the consumer that may affect buying considerations based on health: notably the food industry. In the last few years we have seen ‘traffic lights’ highlighting, for example the amount of salt in a ready meal.
Why shouldn't the packaging of items in the pharmacy not be subject to the same clear labelling requirements?
As Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary medicine, has said,
“My plea is simply for honesty. Let people buy what they want, but tell them the truth about what they are buying. These treatments are biologically implausible and the clinical tests have shown they don't do anything at all in human beings. The argument that this information is not relevant or important for customers is quite simply ridiculous. If [pharmacists] are unable to stick to their ethical code, then they should change their code and be clear that it is alright to put profits before patients. ”
If we were expecting pharmacists to be honest, what would a typical homeopathic product label looks like? I suggest the following:
This quickly gets the key facts across that distinguish the product from others that might have survived some testing. After reading this, most people ought to be able to make an informed decision, and if you are the sort of person who uses crystals for deodorant then you still have your ‘right’ to buy this stuff. Everybody is happy.
Could we ever see such labelling? Somehow I doubt it, for a number of reasons.The government appears to be incapable of taking a position on pseudoscience. Indeed it has recently said that "The government does not find it helpful to define pseudoscience."
I am sure the businesses behind the pharmacies would resist such a move fiercely as it might be difficult to see how any reasonable person would purchase a product labelled as such. The pharmacists would undoubtedly resist it as it would expose them as having being flogging worthless shit for years. Plus, their ranks appear to be filled with supporters of pseudomedicines. The recently departed president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the regulatory body of pharmacists, is now doing this. (Please empty your mouth of liquids before clicking link as otherwise your screen will get wet.)
Plus, and this is a big one, I would imagine that the majority of products for sale in a pharmacy such as Boots, homeopathic, complementary or regular, would be more likely to have red circles than green ones.
The fact that we could, in principle, have such a scheme and the distance we appear from being able to adopt something like this tells us how little our modern pharmacies have progressed from the quack’s apothecary of old.
***********************************************************************************
Update
Thanks to Richard's suggestion in the comments that the homeopathy in Boots simply be moved to a section labelled 'Placebos'.
Of course we get into a dilemma then when the professionals tell you they are giving you a placebo as is so well observed in the (hugely underrated) Smack the Pony sketch...
Labels: 10:23 campaign, boots the chemist, homeopathy
posted by Le Canard Noir at 11:07 PM ShareThis
15 Comments:
Daryl said...
Brilliant idea. Simple, honest, yet brutal.
03 February, 2010 23:22
Daryl said...
Oh, and I should add that this would still be a brilliant idea even if homeopathy weren't involved. Pharmaceutical labels are ridiculously complex, and a simple scheme to highlight the efficacy and safety of all medicines is long overdue.
03 February, 2010 23:25
Anonymous said...
Print off these labels, sneak into Boot's and stick them on!
04 February, 2010 00:39
Ben said...
Actually, I feel that label would be very useful. For example paracetamol:
Evidence: Some (maybe?) as a painkiller.
Safety: Do not exceed stated dose, otherwise usually safe.
Contains 500mg of paracetamol per tablet.
Or whatever. Friendlier labels are always a good thing.
04 February, 2010 01:21
Simon Perry said...
Good, but I think even your label does not go far enough. The public perception of "no evidence" is that the jury is out on the subject of efficacy. The message that needs to be got across is that hundreds of RCTs have been performed and the results are consistent with the hypothesis that homeopathy doesn't work.
The "no evidence" label almost gives credibility for Boots' support for "more
scientific research to help customers make an informed decision". This position is bullshit: the research is out there, they are merely hiding it from their customers as it does not support the sale of their product.
04 February, 2010 08:05
jon killi said...
why does not this aggregation of concerned gents take the gouvernment to court ? in bono publico, non-paid lawyers, etc. ?
04 February, 2010 08:49
Dr Andrew Sikorski said...
Dearest folk- the NHS prescribing software lists all the medicines on the BNF in it alongside the majority of homeopathic remedies and herbals- as someone might have once said- we're doomed....all doomed!!!!
04 February, 2010 09:57
Rob said...
My head is spinning with dismay at the "recently departed president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain" being a woo-peddler. Please tell me that the "Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain" is a Mickey Mouse organisation for wannabees and air-heads and nothing to do with pharmacists, pharmacies and pharmaceutical science? They're a spoof, right? Just with a better than usual spoof website? Without the hidden jokes? What a depressing way to start the day.
Nice idea about the labels. Pity it won't happen.
04 February, 2010 09:59
Richard Rawlins said...
As a member of the BMA's Representative Body, in 2008 I successfully got BMA policy to "call for NICE to report on whether homeopathic remedies should be funded by the NHS".
This has been advised to the Parliamentary Select Committee - and NICE.
NICE responded saying they would do a review if the government asked them to!
So in June 2010 I shall propose that " the NHS should cease to fund homeopathy unless and until NICE reports on the cost effectiveness of homeopathic remedies and recommends their use".
Now, if NICE says such nostrums are OK, then of course Evidence Based Medicine, and indeed Science goes out of the window. We who follow this web site can create 'The Honorable Company of Woo' to promote and sell "Tripe, Piffle, Poppycock and Balderdash" - and to lobby the NHS to pay for it on the grounds that it's what we want.
Note: I do not expect the BMA, or NICE, to deny homeopathy to those who want it. The issue is that tax payers should not be expected to pay for un-proven remedies where there is no or scant credible evidence of efficaciousness.
Simples.
I call for Boots to move these products to a new section in its stores clearly marked "Placebos".
Nothing wrong with them.There is plenty of evidence that placebos "work" in the sense that a number of folk taking them do report they feel "better". Particularly if the pillule is coloured red.
And they have been shown to work as well as homeopathic remedies!
Boots must restore its reputation for honesty.
"Keep Label Laws based on Science" say I.
Dr Richard Rawlins MBA FRCS
Chairman, UK Consultants Conference.
04 February, 2010 11:08
Le Canard Noir said...
Post updated to include a video on what happens when doctors prescribe placebos...
04 February, 2010 11:28
pseudomonas said...
Yes please - as others have said - for all medicines and healthcare products. It'd be great to have a summary of the evidence for the product (at the concentration being sold) and each indication that it's being suggested for. Maybe the Cochrane reviews would be a good gold standard for these.
Homeopathy is easy - it's a degenerate case - but for products that contain stuff (herbal, synthetic, or whatever) one can't tell without a review of trials. It might even increase public awareness of evidence-based medicine.
04 February, 2010 12:01
phayes said...
“The message that needs to be got across is that hundreds of RCTs have been performed and the results are consistent with the hypothesis that homeopathy doesn't work.” —Simon Perry.
Hundreds of pointless exercises in pathological science which could not have been interpreted as inconsistent with that hypothesis no matter what their results.
04 February, 2010 14:43
Richard Rawlins said...
Many thanks for the "Smack the Pony" clip.
The REALLY funny thing is that placebos "work" (on a statistically proven basis) even when the patients/supplicants are told they are placebos!
They do of course "work" better if patients are misled and not told. But Magic is like that! So is homeopathy. (On the balance of probabilities, allegedly, M'Lud.)
Richard Rawlins
Member, The Magic Circle.
04 February, 2010 15:47
Dr Andrew Sikorski said...
Placebo's can cause harm, M'lud- as evidenced in the recent study comparing SSRI's to placebo- the safest SSRI being Lustral- it remains my preferred prescription.
Prof Ellis CBE FRCS, by whom I had the privelege of being educated both in lectures and whilst holding a retractor for him and occasionally 'closing up' was particularly aware of nocebo effects- those nasty things which get in the way of helping a patient recover. It became clear that whilst the sutures held the skin together it was the wisdom of the body which healed the scalpels' wounds. This amazing ability of each of our bodies to heal is close to being ignored by being derogatorily coined a placebo effect. Research and conversation with pharmacists has shown the industry's awareness of the enormous power of the placebo effect which chemists have exploited through the ages by developing the appearance of the pill/ mixture as well as its consistency, odour, flavour and packaging. Indeed generic medication may harm the patient by providing a less potent placebo effect, despite being cheaper. Have you ever wondered at the colour, shape and presentation (on edge with a suggestive reclining angle) of the humble VIAGRA pill- originally an anti-hypertensive with a particularly notable side-effect, and not red in colour!
The patients to whom GPs prescribe homeopathy often have conventional medication on the same NHS FP10 prescription. 60% of GPs in Scotland have had training in Homeopathy and blend it in effortlessly with their daily repertoire for the greater good of their populace. An antibiotic may kill the bug- the body has yet to dispense with the dead bug and render itself ship shape. How can this be best assisted?
Whilst the views of the consultant partialists to whom GPs refer patients for an opinion are highly valued, the general medical care of the individual rests in the GP's responsibility- Consultant partialists offloading the carcass once their remit has been completed, and 80% of the cost of our medical care occuring in Primary Care. Less often now we hear the hackneyed expression: "the operation was a success, blasted patient died!" Yet the effect on numerous souls of being read the list of risks (including death) prior to signing their surgical consent form has a serious nocebo effect, partially mitigated by the anaesthetist playing whale music and whispering per-operative encouragement to their charges.
04 February, 2010 22:54
Dr Andrew Sikorski said...
The sad fact of Iatrogenesis proves we still have a lot to learn about illness, disease and healing. Crucifying homeopathy is a bit like not putting any water in the bath lest the baby drown, or not putting the baby in the water lest it be thrown out. The baby will grow dirty and grimy and stinky. The Royal College of General Practice motto reads "Scientia cum Caritas"- Compassion with Science, not "Scientia, Scientia, Scientia".
There is evidence of effect for homeopathy from RCT's. If there were none I would not be practising and my life would be so much simpler.
Dr Rawlins could look to his own back yard. The BMJ evidence website states 12% of current medical (including surgical) interventions have an evidence base. NICE could suggest 88% of medical work need no longer be funded by the taxpayer. Stones and glasshouses. But do please ask NICE to recommend the wider awareness and use of Autogenic Training of which Professr Ernst is a patron- it really is rather good!
Finally the cost effectiveness of homeopathy is without question for those heartsink patients who have graced multiple partialist out patient departments, undergone repeated expensive investigative procedures and therapeutic manoeuvres to no avail and with a 'tried everything else- try homeopathy' have found objective and subjective improvement at the cost of a milk sugar pill impregnated with a fraction of a chemical substance. Don't ask me how- A scientist and chemist found he developed malaria like symptoms when he took Chinchona bark; that these symptoms ceased with a wash out period, recommenced when he restarted the dose; that the effect was initially repeatable with himself, his family and subsequently medical colleagues; extended to other 'toxic ' substances which effected a cure on patients suffering similar effects to those the experimenters experienced and, paradoxically, the healing effect was magnified when the medicines were diluted to reduce side effects ( a bit like digoxin). All this came about from observation rather than intellectual theory. Also known to Paracelsus and Hippocrates. Please do spread the word about the truth of EBM- the truth- as wide as you can!!
04 February, 2010 22:56
Post a Comment
-------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
Well, well, well, them guys shoulda read a bit. Hahnemann they should read. Hahneman, the original. Hahnemann, the inventor of that fraud "homeopathy".
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vvrFE7Rxtr0/S2oBOZ3khTI/AAAAAAAADNU/0mQubSlAnSU/s1600/labelling+meds%5B14%5D.jpgThe point to make:
[*QUOTE*]
-------------------------------------------------------
Update
Thanks to Richard's suggestion in the comments that the homeopathy in Boots simply be moved to a section
labelled 'Placebos'.
Of course we get into a dilemma then when the professionals tell you they are giving you a placebo as is so well observed in the (hugely underrated) Smack the Pony sketch...
-------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Homeopathic "remedies" are no placebos !!!!!
The homeopaths, idiots as they are, use mercury, and they use it often, and they use it in LOW dilutions of up to, say, D4
That stuff is highly poisonous!
See here:
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_rep1.htm
.
