Individuals Comments on the Regulations
(Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1952)
Professor Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery, University College London
“This is like licensing a witches’ brew as a medicine so long as the bat wings are sterile.”
Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman, said:
“It’s wrong that this country’s medicines regulatory arrangements, which need to be scientific and rigorous, are being diluted and polluted by processes which allow ineffective products to be licensed as medicines without having to provide any scientific evidence of effectiveness. There are very tight standards for proper medicines for very good reasons—the need to protect vulnerable consumers from exploitation.”
Dr Harris, who has worked with Sense About Science to expose the false claims of homeopathy, said:
“The multi-million pound homeopathy industry should not be allowed to make health claims for its products without proper evidence of effectiveness, especially when reliance on ineffective homeopathic ‘remedies’ may delay access to proper diagnosis and treatment of serious conditions.”
Dr Harris, who discovered the Statutory Instrument, said:
“Parliament has never had a chance to debate this significant law change because the Government only laid the Instrument in the last week that Parliament sat with a implementation date—today—in the middle of the recess. We now know what the Government was trying to sneak through.”
Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology, University College London
“The new government regulations allow claims to be made that sugar pills can treat illnesses when there isn’t a fragment of reason to believe the claims are true. This is simply government-endorsed lying.”
Professor Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter
“This makes a mockery out of evidence-based medicine.”
Professor Gustav Born, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, Kings College London
“A statutory instrument giving official sanction to homeopathic preparations, which have no therapeutic effects other than placebo, is a subversion of the nature of evidence.”
Professor John Garrow, Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition, University of London
“I thought the MHRA existed to protect the public from fake medicines that do no good. It is disgusting that they should accept as evidence of efficacy the so-called ‘provings’ of homeopathic products, for fear that otherwise it “would inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry”. It is not the job of the MHRA to support any industry. Their duty is to reassure the public that any medicine which has a licence has been shown by proper controlled trials to be effective. It seems that they have now failed in this duty. Unfortunately, clinicians will not trust them in the future.”
Professor Tom Addiscott
“The exemption of homeopathic products from provision of evidence of their efficacy is grossly irresponsible. It is further evidence of the slide of the UK into a state of sloppy-minded political correctness. We are now part of the post-scientific society and ripe for historical oblivion.”
Dr Mark Atkins
“In addition to the comments made in the statement of objection, it is clear that homeopathic preparations will not comply with accepted quality control procedures as they should all only contain water. It is not physically possible to measure and control the amount of “active” ingredient present, therefore all of the labels will be incorrect and misleading. This legislation is sanctioning widespread fraud. It is NOT within the remit of the MRHA to concern itself with consumer choice.”
Dr Geoff Butcher
“Homeopathic remedies have been recommended for malaria - this is extremely dangerous. It suggests there is no effective control or monitoring of claims by individual practitioners.”
Dr Christopher Cates
“If an exception is made for the normal requirements of evidence of efficacy for homeopathic treatments it will devalue the whole regulation process.”
Catherine Collins
“Whilst I agree that there needs to be some control on the preparation, sale and usage of alternative health products, this regulation gives homeopathy a legitimacy it does not deserve, and infers that homeopathy works to the same degree of efficacy as conventional medicine. This is misleading and untruthful. The only plausible explanation for any objectively determined benefit of homeopathy is the placebo effect. I assume that the regulations would, therefore, legitimately be extended to cover Smarties used for similar ‘treatment’ purposes?”
Dr Peter Ewing
“I have read the MHRA’s impact assessment and press release, and I can scarcely believe that it is issued by an organisation tasked to ‘safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work’. In a classic example of muddled thinking, they have chosen to regard homeopathic provings and case reports as evidence of efficacy, even though they are no such thing. I find the constant references to the benefits to the homeopathic industry very disconcerting. The MHRA appear to have simply abandoned their original remit in favour of another.”
Debbie Gamble
“As someone who uses some homeopathic treatments both for myself, my husband and my 7 year old son who has a chronic condition, I do believe that some homeopathic rememdies can be helpful. However, I am horrified that the regulations being amended will allow them to make medical claims without scientific proof to back these up. Many vulnerable people may be mislead and misinformed and I feel very strongly that this should not happen.”
Dr W G Herrenden Harker
“I feel strongly that the use of medicines must be based on scientific evidence in order to safeguard patients from fraudulent and potentially very damaging ‘treatments’ on offer by numerous alternative medicine practitioners. The investigation into the claims by homeopaths concerning malaria highlights this need very clearly.”
A Morris
“A contributing factor towards this current nonsense is that academic medicine - i.e. as taught in medical schools - has for some time now, with the encouragement of organisations such as the GMC (‘Tomorrow’s Doctors’ ), been moving away from emphasising scientific medicine towards social medicine. This develops an atmosphere where rigour is lost. ‘If it works for me, it must be right’, forgetting post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
Joe Parker
“I harbour no bias against homeopathy (or any other therapy) should it be proven effective by protocols that stand up to internationally-accepted standards of academic scrutiny.”
Nick Ross
“Sometimes politics must take priority over science. After all, Galileo capitulated to the Inquisition. But what instruments of torture threatened members of the MHRA - or were they simply intellectual cowards? The MHRA exists to guarantee safety and efficacy. Certainly nobody much questions the biochemical toxicity of homeopathy; but by their dismal capitulation to politics MHRA members have now given an ineffective treatment an official stamp of approval. Let us hope that people who are ill take it only for trivial conditions. What next for the MHRA? Can they equally be bullied by the pharmaceuticals industry?”
James Sykes
“While MHRA might defend it’s press release as reassuring the public that approved treatments are harmless, they should also require labelling to declare that there is no evidence that they are beneficial. The irresponsibility of the MHRA scheme is demonstrated by Penny Viner’s statement that the scheme will ‘enhance the consumer’s understanding of their benefits’.”
Professor Anthony Trewavas FRS
“Government policy should always be based on the best available knowledge not superstition. After all what else is there other than knowledge to base reliable policy on?”
Roger Turner
“All medicines should be tested by the same set of regulations without any special treatment being given to any type of product.”
Sign our statement of support for evidence based medicine (just click at the bottom of the pdf).
For further information, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or on 020 7478 4380.
Last updated: April 16 2008
