Pharmacists to "Tell the Truth" about homeopathy? But that will ruin sales!
August 2nd, 2008
|
| Share |
Homeopathic remedies, a problematic scam the world over seem to have become an especially acute problem in Great Britain in the past few years. They’re sold in many pharmacies and many have demanded they be covered by the national healthy care program and even used in hospitals and clinics. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the predominant national organization of pharmacies and pharmacists in Britain has recently been asked to take action due to allegations that these products are being sold without the proper information being given to consumers by the retailers.
In an open letter to the society, Edzard Ernst, the country’s only professor of complementary medicine, criticises high street pharmacists for selling homeopathic remedies without informing customers that they contain no biologically active agents and are no more effective than sugar pills.
The ethical code states that pharmacists who sell homeopathic remedies, herbal medicines or other complementary therapies, “must assist patients in making informed decisions” by providing them with “necessary and relevant information”.
According to the letter, “customers are frequently misinformed … by promotional material available in UK pharmacies and verbal advice given by pharmacists. Thus pharmacists breach their own mandatory ethical code on a daily basis.”
The letter, which was published in the society’s most recent newsletter goes on to say:
“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,” he says. “If they 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.”
Yes, it sounds straight forward. Just tell people that there’s nothing in the product and that it doesn’t work. Of course, that would clearly kill sales. One of the biggest targets of critics over such products is the Boots chain of pharmacies which is the largest in Britain and which Ernst called the country’s largest seller of “quack remedies.” A Boots spokesperson fired back stating that “Homeopathy is recognised by the NHS and many health professionals and our customers choose to use homeopathy.”
That being said, it’s a damn good thing to see the national pharmacy association becoming so concerned and direct about the issue of quack medicine. This is an issue which cannot be ignored as it can undermine the great medical advances that modern societies have come to benefit from and at the same time line the pockets of some very undeserving and dishonest individuals.
More good news is that homeopathic “prescriptions” are down more than 50% in the past two years in the UK and signs are that the fad may finally be coming to and end, having managed to go for several years with popular support, the backlash is finally arriving. GP’s are said to be shunning the whole damn field, which, of course, should be shunned (and laughed at too, because it’s idiotic).
It seems that really this is an issue where knowledge is the one thing that undermines homeopathy more than anything else. Once you know what it actually is, it becomes obvious that it won’t work and that the very concept is fundamentally flawed and just stupid. Still, I’d suggest that the best way of beating homeopathy is simply by having a label put on homeopathic products to give consumers the basics on the nature of the product. In the US they already do that for cigarettes and plenty of other products.
Of course, homeopathy and quackery in general is a problem in North America as well, although it does not seem to (yet) have gotten the same kind of fad momentum that it has in the UK. Hopefully it can be stamped out before it hits full force stateside.
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 am
I hate how they try to make something like homeopathy “controversial” or how it’s a two-sided thing or whatever. It’s not. The stuff doesn’t work and that’s that. There are no two-sides. It’s fact and it’s shown. It only has one correct answer. It’s a scam. There is no debate. Medical science dismissed it ages ago. Why is this still even a topic of discussion? Any decent pharmacist should know enough about how medication actually works to tell someone it is bull****
Quote Comment
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am
“Brittan” should be “Britain”. Normally, I wouldn’t bother correcting the odd mistake, but it’s important to get names right. Respect and all that. Also, both are valid to a spellchecker, but only one is the actual name for the British Isles.
Most people I’ve asked have no idea what homeopathy is. They usually think it’s some kind of herbal remedies, possibly using ancient Chinese recipes. They are usually amazed when I explain to them what it is and its ‘theory’. The dilution usually bowls them over too.
Quote Comment
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ward said:
Yeah weird. My spell check was cool with the other spelling so I figured it was okay. Thanks.
Quote Comment
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
I changed pharmacies when the one I had been doing business with started selling this sort of garbage. That was about four years ago. Since then it was bought out and closed by the one I transferred my files to. I note that the new place didn’t feel it had to service the alternate medicine market.
Quote Comment
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Actually, today in Desperate Remedies, the Quackometer writes about how homeopathy is on the wane in the British NHS.
Quote Comment
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
What is so angering is that homeopathy exists at all through NHS. It would be one thing if it were only supported by idiots using their own money to privately support it but the fact that it is getting funding and support from the national healthcare program is very angering. I’d expect some better validation before it gets that kind of government sanctioning.
Quote Comment
August 4th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Skeptico said:
It sounds like homeopaths in Britain have had some success trying to worm their way into the mainstream health program. Good thing they’re on the way down! I can see how government money going to those frauds would be very angering. It seems like the health program would have enough expense as is paying for mainstream stuff and not dealing with those scammers.
I wonder how many of the doctors who actually recommend that stuff even know what it is. Everyone I talk to seems to think it means herbal or ancient chinese or natural ingredients or something like that. It sounds like Ward had the same experience. Education and having the pharmacy staff give it straight out would help bigtime!
Quote Comment
August 8th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Unfortunately, homeopathy has had a huge following amongst the Indian middle-class for decades now. There are rationalist societies in India, as well as tons of scientists, yet no one has campaigned to exposure this quackery for what it is…
Quote Comment
January 7th, 2011 at 1:40 am
Your malicious propaganda against homeopathy is set to die soon.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/IIT-B-team-shows-how-homeopathy-works/articleshow/7108579.cms
with technology becoming better, soon even idiots like you will be able to understand How Homeopathy Works.
Quote Comment
January 7th, 2011 at 2:53 am
Nisha Singh said:
Well I clicked on the article and read it. I’m not sure how it shows any support for homeopathy. The researchers claimed that there were nanoscale metal particles in the homeopathically prepared dilutions. This does not actually mean that ‘nanotechnology’ is afoot. It just means that either the dilution technique was ineffective, or more likely, no dilution was performed at all, and the particles just represent the normal content of the water used for the preperation.
Quote Comment