Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

The MRHA site is full of useful stuff- thanks!

They state theywill approve "Medicines, which meet the standards of safety, quality and efficacy, are granted a marketing authorisation (previously a product licence), which is normally necessary before they can be prescribed or sold. This authorisation covers all the main activities associated with the marketing of a medicinal product. The MHRA carries out pre-marketing assessment of the medicine's safety, quality and efficacy, examining all the research and test results in detail, before a decision is made on whether the product should be granted a marketing authorisation."

However, for homeopathic medicine, they just require "quality and safety", not efficacy. I wonder why not? Should we ask them?

In theory is it feasible to apply to the MRHA for a license for a "safe and quality" product (say, magnetic water, for example) which could be then granted a license, and marketed and sold for £100 per bottle and also prescribed on the NHS?
 
I've found this on the electronic BNF, explaining why they don't even give homoeopathy a name-check:
Why are herbal and homeopathic remedies not included in the BNF?

We appreciate that such an expansion of the BNF would enable practitioners to access various options from a single volume. However, to expand the BNF in this way is unlikely to be practicable currently.

The infrastructure of the BNF (the Joint Formulary Committee, the clinical advisers and the editorial staff) has been set up to possess special expertise and knowledge on the use of conventional medicines. Such a structure enables the BNF to provide authoritative information. In order to provide reliable and authoritative information on homeopathic or herbal medicines, it would be necessary to set up a parallel structure with specific expertise in complementary medicine. It would be very difficult to achieve this and to include all the information in one volume which provides advice on the selection of both types of medicines would add a further level of complexity. In short, we feel that it is best for the BNF to focus on what it does best! To expand its scope could risk devaluing the product.

A particular difficulty with complementary medicines is that there are no nationally recognised standards to govern the quality (or even identity) of the products. Therefore, it is not possible to describe the clinical effects of these products reliably.
Click to expand...
This sounds very much like bureaucrat-speak for "we don't want to sully our hands with quackery." but it does suggest the products aren't completely verboten - which we knew they weren't anyway, as medics do use them.

However, I'm still hazy about what a "registration certificate" is, and is it the same as a marketing authorisation?

It's relatively academic, because vets are obliged to use veterinary products where these exist, and this would prevent them from getting on to human-licensed products in the majority of cases. But I still can't see how you could draft in anything that doesn't have an approved therapeutic recommendation for use in any species.

Rolfe.
 
Deetee said:
However, for homeopathic medicine, they just require "quality and safety", not efficacy. I wonder why not? Should we ask them?
Click to expand...
Well, they do actually say this is because the homoeopathic remedies couldn't get authorisation in regular trials because they couldn't demonstrate efficacy.

They seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for the homoeopathic paradox. This is where the homoeopaths will blandly assure you that the remedies can't possibly be unsafe in any way (either adverse effects or harmful residues) because there's nothing in them. But in the same breath they'll assure you that despite there being nothing in them there is really (undetectable) energy in them, and so they are heap powerful medicine.

Now this is nonsense. Either you accept the first premise, which is that there's nothing in them so they do nothing, in which case the therapeutic claims have to be dismissed as well, or you accept the second premise,which is that they're full of undetectable but physiologically active "energy", in which case the fact that there's "nothing" in them is clearly no guarantee against undesirable effects. So you have to send them back.

Looks as if, either for a quiet life or political expediency, the MRHA have chosen to ignore this paradox, and in effect said, OK, we'll let you put your strange labels on your content-free preparations, as long as they really are content-free and you don't make any therapeutic claims.

Cowards.

Rolfe.
 
In order to provide reliable and authoritative information on homeopathic or herbal medicines, it would be necessary to set up a parallel structure with specific expertise in complementary medicine
Click to expand...
This is an unbelievable statement. How can they say there is a difference between conventional and sCAM medicines? Either they work or they don't. Pretty simple I would have thought. Why on earth do they need a separate structure?

"Cowards" is a tag I would agree with.
 
It begins to look like Sarah has decided to reveal her hypocrisy as well as her naivety, popping up on the wooism thread to blather on with more platitudes about how ethical they are but chickening out of the discussion where she has been called on her woeful ignorance of pathology!


As to the main issue of this thread, the mealy-mouthedness of the medical regulators concerning human homeopathy, in no way lets the vet homs of the hook, when they make explicit claims to be able to treat with magic water alone diseases like hyperthyroidism for which there are properly licenesed effective drugs.
 
I can read this thread but can't even pretend to follow it. But it appears to be a shining example of sketicism. Rolfe and BSM don't attack or call names. They deal in facts, probabilities and allow for uncertainties. They never engage in name-calling or ad hominum attacks.

Would all of JREF emulate this thread.
 
I have a very good and clear understanding of pathology and have not chickened out of any discussion as far as I am aware.
 
RSSchlueter said:
They never engage in name-calling or ad hominum attacks.

Would all of JREF emulate this thread.
Click to expand...

For future reference RSSchlueter - calling someone (us homeopaths) "doorknobs" actually would be name calling.
 
Barbrae said:
For future reference RSSchlueter - calling someone (us homeopaths) "doorknobs" actually would be name calling.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I was wondering what exactly it's referring to. Having said that, it doesn't look like he's referring to you guys as doorknobs, just suggesting someone who believes in homeopathy might just as well place their faith in a doorknob to support their belief. That wouldn't be ad hominem, just an amusing comparison.

If you want to see petty ad hominem bitch-slapping go have a look at www.hpathy.com. They usually delete the threads when dissent is detected, but a few can be found.
 
Benguin said:
I agree, but I was wondering what exactly it's referring to.

If you want to see petty ad hominem bitch-slapping go have a look at www.hpathy.com. They usually delete the threads when dissent is detected, but a few can be found.
Click to expand...

No no you want to see this forum

http://com1.runboard.com/bhomeopathywellnesscenter.fmainchat.t29

this is the one where they claim we are getting paid and then want to spam our inboxes into obivilion (not that I care if they want to try that).
 
Barbrae said:
For future reference RSSchlueter - calling someone (us homeopaths) "doorknobs" actually would be name calling.
Click to expand...

Barb

Read Benguin's reply then read back a few posts to get the context. He is correct.
 
Barbrae said:
For future reference RSSchlueter - calling someone (us homeopaths) "doorknobs" actually would be name calling.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you look at the post, BSM was using the term to describe any vet (homoeopathic or not) who thought that the clinical signs Sarah described were definitely or even probably indicative of a stroke.

Thinking that a stroke is caused by calcium plaques in the neck (the discussion Sarah chose not to pursue) probably comes under that general heading as well.

Rolfe.
 
Thinking that a stroke is caused by calcium plaques in the neck (the discussion Sarah chose not to pursue) probably comes under that general heading as well.
Click to expand...

Now just hang on a minute here. This is what at least two fully qualified vets told me. They were not homeopathic vets either, but both conventionally trained. I did not think to say anything to them at the time, as I was conventrating all my efforts on trying to care for my dog. I know full well what causes CVA's in humans and I am assuming that the same would be true for animals also? I am not a vet which is why I am asking. I know that lots of things occur differently in animals than they do in humans.

There is nothing wrong with my pathological knowledge or otherwise. At the time I was trying to concentrate on the dog rather than listen to what a vet was saying to me.
 
Sarah-I said:
Now just hang on a minute here. This is what at least two fully qualified vets told me. They were not homeopathic vets either, but both conventionally trained.
Click to expand...
All vets are conventionally trained. The fact that some of them later turn to forms of magic and mysticism with no scientific basis is just one example of the great variety of weirdness that makes up mankind.

So, Sarah, do calcium plaques in the neck cause strokes in humans?

Rolfe.
 
Barbrae said:
For future reference RSSchlueter - calling someone (us homeopaths) "doorknobs" actually would be name calling.
Click to expand...

Little touchy, today, are we? The original doorknob post had no reference to hpaths at all.

That said, I would call hpaths doorknobs but see no reason to sully the reputation of doorknobs.

There, contrary to my first post, I have succeeded in pulling this refreshing thread right into the gutter. But you need to be clear that Rolfe, BSM, et. al. remain as clear thinking, well-mannered skeptics while I, alone here, am the typical, nasty, thoughtess sketical boob. Eh?
 
Sarah, I wonder if you could briefly indicate what does cause a stroke - calling on your pathology expertise you should have no problems with this....
 
Sarah-I said:
I know full well what causes CVA's in humans and I am assuming that the same would be true for animals also?
Click to expand...

So, tell us. Your unquestioning citing as fact those vets' ideas does not inspire confidence.
 
You've still neglected to explain what relevance this shaggy dog story has. I've already reminded you that you specifically brought it up in response to a challenge to come up with a serious case dealt with by homeopathy. Now you say it's not relevant and homeopathy had no part to play. So, why did the story come up? Some kind of internet forum Tourette's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom