MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

This challenge for all homeopaths of the world was inspired by an avid commentator to this blog who, at every fitting and unfitting occasion, insists that those who doubt homeopathy must do a homeopathic proving.

A homeopathic ‘proving’ (Arzneimittelpruefung in Hahnamann’s less confusing terminology) is a test where a healthy person takes a (usually potentised) homeopathic remedy and then carefully notes all the symptoms and sensations which appear subsequently. When Hahnemann ‘discovered’ homeopathy, he took some cinchona and thought to experience the symptoms of malaria. This was the reason why he, after further such experiments, postulated that LIKE CURES LIKE.

To the present day, homeopathy relies on such provings. If we cannot sleep after drinking coffee, it is not unlike a proving of coffee, and homeopaths conclude that potentised coffee is a remedy for insomnia. I have done several provings many years ago, but they never worked the way homeopaths expect. We also investigared whether a related phenomenon, homeopathic aggravations (the worsening of the presenting symptom after taking the a well-chosen homeopathic remedy), claimed by homeopaths do exist at all; the answer was simple: no! In fact, the only people who believe in provings and aggravations are the homeopaths.

All this inspired me to now issue

A challenge for all homeopaths of the world

Here is the deal:

  1. you, the convinced homeopath, name the 6 homeopathic remedies that you cannot possibly miss when doing a proving on yourself;
  2. I order them in the potency you wish (only condition: it must be higher than C12) from a reputable source;
  3. I have the bottles delivered unopened to a notary where I live;
  4. the notary fills them into containers marked 1-6 (if you wish, you can send the notary empty containers for that ppurpose);
  5. the notary keeps the code under lock and key that links the name of the remedies to the numbers 1-6;
  6. he then mails the coded 6 remedies to you;
  7. you can use the proving method which you consider best and do as many provings as you like (the only limiting factors are the number of globuli in the containers and the time you have to crack the code);
  8. I give you 100 days for conducting the provings;
  9. once you are ready, you send your verdicts to the notary (e.g. 1 = rhus, tox, 2 = sulfur, 3 = arsenic, etc., etc.);
  10. the notary looks up the code and lets us both know the result.

I am happy to pay all the costs involved in the experiment (notary, remedies, postage, etc.). We can also discuss some of the details of this challenge, in case they run counter to your views on provings, rigorous science, etc.

To make sure we both ‘mean business’, once we both accept these conditions (you can flesh out the missing details as you wish), we both transfer a sum Euro 2 000 to an account with the notary. If you want to increase the sum, please let me know; as I said, we can discuss most of the details of my challenge to suit your needs. If you manage to ‘crack the code’ 1-6, the notary will transfer the sum of Euro 4 000 (your deposit and mine) to your account. If you fail, he will transfer the same amount to my account.

SIMPLE!

The entry into the challenge closes at the end of the year 2020.

Why should you take on this challenge? I can see several reasons:

  1. You want to prove that provings are valid.
  2. You want to teach me, and all other critics of homeopathy, a lesson.
  3. You want to earn Euro 2 000 quickly and without much work.
  4. You want the sceptics of the world to know that homeopathy is valid (we will report about our experiment fairly and to publish the report not just on this blog, but anywhere you want [provided the editors accept the paper for publication]).

Why do I take on the risk of losing a significant amount of money? Here too, I see more than one reason:

  1. I do not consider it a great risk; as I said, I did several provings myself and am quite certain they don’t work.
  2. I know about the implausiblity of the assumption that a remedy which contains nothing has any effects beyond expectation.
  3. I could do with the extra Euro 2 000.
  4. If no homeopath takes on the challenge, I shall henceforce declare that homeopaths were unable to prove that their provings are valid.

 

101 Responses to A CHALLENGE FOR ALL HOMEOPATHS OF THE WORLD

  • James Randi would be proud of you!

  • ‘If no homeopath takes on the challenge, I shall henceforce declare that homeopaths were unable to prove that their provings are valid.’

    And if any does take it on, you will be able to declare such. In fact, we can already do so.

    ‘Provings’ prove nothing.

  • “In fact, the only people who believe in provings and aggravations are the homeopaths.”
    NO! NOT ALL HOMEOPATHS1

    “The Gaulish village, also known as the “village of the indomitable”, is located in Aremorica in Gaul. It is surrounded by the fortified Roman camps Babaorum, Aquarium, Laudanum and Kleinbonum and borders the sea coast in the north. This is the only place in all of Gaul that is not occupied by Romans……”

    Sorry to say and also to contradict some other homeopaths, the above challenge cannot function, because it contradicts totally the law of similarity:
    If this law is right, one person can only react to 1 (ONE!) remedy, the remedy to which the one person goes into RESONANCE.
    I know, I am a heretic in that sense, but I see homeopathy working very well, when considering the law of resonance!

    • I think you have just re-invented homeopathy
      in any case, my challenge does not forbid you to recruit as many provers as you want [solange der Vorrat reicht]

    • Dr. Heinrich Hümmer
      Ah, that’s another test. How do you detect resonance, and is it reproducible?

    • ‘… I see homeopathy working very well, when considering the law of resonance!’

      Meaningless statement. Twaddle!

    • “If this law is right, one person can only react to 1 (ONE!) remedy,”

      Just to get this one clear:

      You are stating, that patient and prover have to share the same “responsiveness” to the remedy in question, that is, they should show the same natural frequency (to stay in the picture with resonance). That means, your materia medica is useless because you do not know the natural frequencies of the individual provers who found the symptoms listed there.

      So you do not lnow, what a certain remedy will do with the patient – or to stay in your mindset: you do not know how a certain patient will react to the remedy you prescribe. Neither which will be the symptoms nor if the patient will react at all.

      Conclusion: You and your patient would have to rely on mere chance alone that you hit upon the proper remedy eventually. Does not sound like a sure method to cure patients, does it?

    • Any individual will have a range of reactions to a remedy depending on its similarity, like with any drug. For a dissimilar or partially similar drug/remedy they have to take it more often to see the “side effects” that it causes. it wont be curative tho.

  • Many provings were made with original tinctures and – no wonder – showed reactions.

    proceeding from these we can indeed observe the opposite effects when the same remedies are used homeopathically. And you, Edzard, have already confirmed that in your publications (… ileus …)

    • only, if you cherry-pick even from the conclusions of the abstract [but that’s what you are good at, aren’t you?]

      • In any case, I can see that homeopathy “worries” you still night and day and read from it a fascination and an inner doubt as to whether it might not work …(as you formerly believed…)

        • no, it amuses me from time to time; that’s all.

          • ….you make a different impression. And, I did not think that you are so inflexible that you cannot change the experimental arrangement in the interests of a correct understanding of homeopathy.

            So the question arises, if you mean ist serious or it is one more of your good jokes?

          • I mean it seriously and therefore must stick to the basic outline of my challenge.
            You want to test your somewhat bizarre ideas of homeopathy; that is of no interest to me. If the tests turned out negative, other homeopaths would say BUT THIS WAS NOT A TEST OF HOMEOPATHY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. So, you do your own tests of your own version of homeopathy. Good luck.

  • And:

    I propose to you (as I have already done to Dr. Aust) that we change the test arrangement in line with the true simile law: A person for whom a remedy has been shown to have helped reproducibly (see, for example, publication) finds (out of many bottles) their remedy out, and possibly several times, until the random probability corresponds to the Lake Constance drop …

    • that’s an entirely new challenge. you should publish it and go for it.
      i cannot do 2 at the same time.

      • Isn´t it curious:
        EVERY SINGLE TIME that homeopaths are offered to win a decent chunk (or even a huge amount) of money in case that they can prove their beloved nonsense quackery in an unbiased test (e.g. by Randi, the GWUP, and now by EE), they chicken out and twist like a pretzel to find excuses not to take the challenge.
        No clue why this always happens… anyone has a suggestion?
        😉

  • I am ready for this challenge and look forward to receiving my €2000.
    The 6 remedies i chose are the following:
    1 Rhus tox
    2 Toxicodendron radicans
    3 Poison ivy
    4 Toxicodendron quercifolium
    5 Rhus-t
    6 Rhus toxicodendron

  • A stipulation has to be that the homeopathic products are legal in the UK: they are regulated medicinal products and it would be illegal for a UK manufacturer to supply products that are not either registered or authorised by the MHRA.

  • I could do with the extra Euro 2 000

    But … but … but … what happened all those millions you must have received from Big Pharma for discrediting homeopathy?

    What, you blew it all on your Dom Perignon habit? Ah, OK, those were provings … well that explains it … and Dom Perignon is actually quite cheap compared to homeopathic ‘remedies'(*) …

    *: The average liquid homeopathic product costs some $20 per liquid ounce, or $650 per litre – quite steep for plain water.
    Dom Perignon 2008 vintage retails at $180 per bottle (75 cl), or a mere $240 per litre …

  • Why do homeopathic medicines that have not passed the test continue to be used? It’s a sign of pseudoscience and bad medical practice.

    • What test are you referring to? There is no “test” like a clinical study that allopathic pharmacies are required before they put some toxic drug like the lethal Vioxx on the market. Homeopathic remedies are non-toxic, so they can be given without concern for harm. Homeopaths know the indications for a remedy based on a proving. But if they give a remedy that is not similar, no harm done. If only taken once or a few times, it will have little or no effect.

      • “Homeopathic remedies are non-toxic, so they can be given without concern for harm.”

        Well that’s a lie.

        • Given your Vast knowledge of homeopathy, tell me how that is a lie. its definitely a simplification. If you can tell me the possible harm, you get a gold star. And its not from avoiding dangerous conventional treatments.

  • @Fatima araujo

    Why do conventional medicines that HAVE passed the smell test, but have been proven to cause damage to the patient (even though they many times only benefit a small majority) continue to be used ? THIS… is a bad medical practice.

    • The difference RG is that most real medicines have real effects and also side effects. Homeopathy has no effects, and the danger of being attracted away from potentially life-saving medicine. And for heaven’s sake please stop gravitating to the tu quoque fallacy time after time.

      • Because its so obvious and easy. You are “selling” allopathic medicine as being safe and effective, when for chronic diseases it is mostly neither except to suppress/palliate symptoms, if you want to call that effective. Meanwhile you attack homeopathy as being some sort of menace to society, which is hyperbole of the highest order. The number that homeopathy kills in anyone year even by your ridiculously loose standards, is a rounding error on the rounding error, of what allopathy kills; so few that you have to hype the few cases that you find.

        • Roger
          ” You are “selling” allopathic medicine as being safe and effective, when for chronic diseases it is mostly neither except to suppress/palliate symptoms, if you want to call that effective. ”

          Trotting out the usual baseless tropes from homeopaths is not an argument. `Allopathic’ is a pejorative term invented by Hahnemann for anything that wasn’t homeopathy. In the modern context it is meaningless. Do you know anything about, for example, genetic markers of disease, or cellular receptor dynamics, or biological response modifiers? What do you think happens to all the research that is done around the world into these subjects? Much of it is the feed to better treatments, based on deep knowledge of the underlying processes. It’s simplistic and puerile to witter on about “suppressing symptoms”. What is even stranger about this attitude is that homeopathy is based entirely on symptoms. That’s what proving is, a catalogue of symptoms. How does that tell us anything about the causes of disease?

          Basically you sound like a preacher reading from the holy book. Don’t bother, we’ve heard it all before.

          • So Les, I would like to hear of some deep lasting allopathic cures, i.e. where the patient doesnt have to keep taking the treatment for the rest of their life to manage symptoms. Please, let me know. Lots of fancy testing going on; not many cures.

          • Roger
            “So Les, I would like to hear of some deep lasting allopathic cures,”
            I am not falling for that. As I have said, `allopathic’ is a derogatory and meaningless term. Please use proper language.

          • @Roger

            Antibiotics, Roger. Billions of lives saved. Homeopathy predates antibiotic therapy. Wonder why bacterial infections were still such killers when homeopathy was the only option? I know why. You don’t.

            Chemotherapy for non-solid tumours. How many children cured of leukaemia?

            As compared to all the people homeopathy has cured, the numbers of which can be counted on the thumbs of one foot.

          • Roger,
            although I suspect you cant´t be serious & are just a troll, I will give you another example.

            A friend of mine (young mother of two children) was diagnosed with Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) a little over a year ago. This disease is caused by a chromosome translocation, resulting in a permanently active enzyme called tyrosin kinase.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_myelogenous_leukemia

            Fortunately for her, tyrosin kinase inhibitors have been developed by scientists in 2001, which are now produced by “big,bad pharma”. After thousands of years of human existence, an efficient treatment is now available.

            Quote:

            “CML is largely treated with targeted drugs called tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which have led to dramatically improved long-term survival rates since 2001. These drugs have revolutionized treatment of this disease and allow most patients to have a good quality of life when compared to the former chemotherapy drugs.”

            “Before the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the median survival time for CML patients had been about 3–5 years from time of diagnosis. With the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, survival rates have improved dramatically. (…) A 2011 followup of 832 patients using imatinib who achieved a stable cytogenetic response found an overall survival rate of 95.2% after 8 years, which is similar to the rate in the general population. Fewer than 1% of patients died because of leukemia progression.”

            Not too bad, is it, Roger?!
            If you one day should be affected by a disease like this, then feel free to take useless sugar pills or other alternative BS instead. Maybe for persons like you, it must come to this… I certainly don´t hope so.

          • Lenny, Antibiotics are used for acute diseases for the most part. I am referring to chronic diseases.

            You wouldnt know how many cures of chronic disease with homeopathic treatment because you havent looked into it. You are just going on your imagination based on your flawed mechanistic paradigm. “Its too dilute therefore it cant work.” which is the extent of your understanding of it.

            Jashak, being required to take a drug for the rest of your life is not a cure. Its a treatment. I am asking for long term cures of chronic disease i.e. take the treatment for a period of time and then totally relieved of those symptoms for the rest of your life. That is a cure.

            I did take “useless” sugar pills for malaria in India during an epidemic that killed thousands and was completely cured with no relapse. At the time malaria was considered incurable.

          • Roger

            Lenny, Antibiotics are used for acute diseases for the most part. I am referring to chronic diseases.

            Move those goalposts, Roger, why not?

            Much as I hate to burst your little bubble of pompous stupidity, chronic chronic conditions are chronic conditions because they cannot be cured. The circularity of your argument demonstrates only your foolishness.

            And let us be reminded, once again that, contrary to your claims, homeopathy has never cured anything. A few people have recovered whist taking it homeopathic remedies and the homeopaths have claimed that it’s their magic sugar pills wot dun it. Homeopathy is to medicine what rain dancing is to meteorology.

            Should I do a proving, Roger? Others have done, and have done so correctly. Guess what the results were? Have a look here.

            A properly randomised, blinded and controlled proving, Roger. The resuts? “We were unable to distinguish between Belladonna C30 and placebo using our primary outcome measure”

            The same as happens in all properly-conducted “provings” of inert sugar pills.

            The boat sailed years ago, Roger. And yet you still stand on the quayside waving.

            It’s pathetic, really.

          • @Lenny I didn’t move any goalposts. I said that CON-Med doesn’t cure chronic disease, with rare exceptions. Even though you are not willing to investigate it, Homeopathy has been routinely documenting cures of chronic diseases for 200+ years.

            No circularity of my argument is involved. A chronic disease is a disease that is not self-limiting. It requires some intervention to cure it. Even CON-Med will accidentally cure a chronic disease occasionally. If you are going to discuss disease you should at least understand the terms.

            The so-called proving that you referred to is a nice try but not a proving. Every human being is unique with a unique susceptibility to any remedy. Belladonna has a wide range of action. In the Synthesis Repertory it is listed in over 12,000 rubrics (symptom summaries). The Materia Medica for Belladonna is even more vast. This so-called proving had no supervisors and it only inquired about 10 symptoms for 20+ provers. I did a brief proving once where I experienced exactly one new symptom and it wasn’t one of the most well known symptoms for the remedy.

            Give it a try Lenny. Have some courage. Don’t keep taking other people’s experiences. Do your own homeopathic proving.

  • @Les Rose

    Les, just because the “scientific” community has determined that a given Homeopathic treatment/remedy did not achieve an outcome that benefited more than 50% of patients in a study, does not nullify the possibility that it may well have benefited 40% of the patients, and possibly with more safety.

    Have you ever considered this ? This is what is so bogus about CONmed. There is no one treatment that works for everybody…. don’t ya think ?

    • RG,

      Have you ever considered this ? This is what is so bogus about CONmed. There is no one treatment that works for everybody…. don’t ya think ?

      It is well-established that no one treatment works for everybody, as anyone involved in healthcare knows and just about all clinical trials confirm. Individual people (and indeed members of any biological system) are so diverse that there is no reason to suppose that they would all react to anything in the same way.

      An active area of medical research is to investigate the reason for these differences. It is becoming standard practice now in oncology to test tumour samples for specific DNA mutations and abnormalities of protein expression in order to predict which treatments are likely to be most effective and to avoid using those that are unlikely to help. Individualised medicine is still at an early stage, but we are beginning to realise, for instance, that many drugs affect men and women in different ways (even something as familiar as paracetamol (which you will know as acetamenophen or Tylenol), and even the time of day can affect the response and toxicity of a drug, due to circadian variations in the levels of many enzymes – whether or not a paracetamol overdose is fatal can depend on what time of day it is taken.

    • RG
      “Les, just because the “scientific” community has determined that a given Homeopathic treatment/remedy did not achieve an outcome that benefited more than 50% of patients in a study, does not nullify the possibility that it may well have benefited 40% of the patients, and possibly with more safety.”

      It’s too much I suppose to expect you to learn some basic statistics. What you say is not how science works. Have you actually read a published paper? I strongly recommend “How to Read a Paper” by Trish Greenhalgh. Come back here when you have, you are not doing yourself any credit right now.

      • @Les Rose

        Les, that’s a BS response. I follow Trish Greenhalgh writings completely.
        Understanding statistics is not the issue. How the CONmed community has determined to apply those statistics to their studies is more precisely the issue.
        If CONmed wants to argue science is on their side, and be completely dogmatic about how studies of therapies prove they are effective. they they need more than the preponderance of the evidence on their side. Vaccines on average are 90% effective or better. Why is it that CONmed has lowered the bar so much for other studies ?

        • RG
          Your arguments are increasingly impenetrable. What is more important than “the preponderance of the evidence on their side”? Are you confusing the percentage effectiveness for a vaccine with a 1:1 randomisation in an RCT? 90% effectiveness for a vaccine is not the same thing as 50% of patients responding to a treatment. Outcomes in RCTs may be of many different types, depending on the treatment and condition. But a vaccine study will still be randomised, usually but not always 1:1. Can you explain please what you mean by “lower the bar”? The bar depends on the outcome required. Giving 50% of cancer patients another 6 months of life may well be acceptable, but a vaccine may need to prevent infection in 90% of people to be worthwhile.

          I don’t ask this with any hope of reaching any agreement with you. Your arguments are based on belief. I do this to get an understanding of what drives supporters of pseudoscience.

          • @Les Rose

            “The bar depends on the outcome required. Giving 50% of cancer patients another 6 months of life may well be acceptable”

            lol, says who ? ….says the powers that be…. hahaha
            NOT SCIENCE, true science would demand 100% efficacy

          • “NOT SCIENCE, true science would demand 100% efficacy”

            RG, that is so idiotic a reply that it’s hardly worth my time to debunk it. Science is the business of reducing uncertainty.

          • @Les Rose

            Ahhhh yes Les, 55% efficacy give soooo much more certaintity than 45% efficacy.

            What a SCAM CONmed is

  • I would be inclined to do this, if some of you skeptics would do the proving as well.

    • Read the post again please.
      you can recruit whoever you want for your provings.

    • I have never been able to recruit a So-called Skeptic to do a proving yet. You dont seem willing to challenge your faith in the mechanistic paradigm. I dont think you understand the scale of effort required to do a proving. Takes a group of people, maybe 8-12 and 3 or 4 supervisors, working 3-4 weeks for each proving. You are expecting us to do that for 6 different remedies, and the supposed prize is $2k? Maybe y’all will be willing to be involved. I might consider that.

      What mismanaged provings were you involved n, Edzard?

      • ” I dont think you understand the scale of effort required to do a proving.”
        BUT I DO, I DO!!!
        remember, I did several myself.
        and don’t tell me there is only one [your] method to do them; that’s just BS.

      • Lol, here goes the weaseling. You do not disappoint, Roger.

        Quoter:” I have never been able to recruit a So-called Skeptic to do a proving yet. You dont seem willing to challenge your faith in the mechanistic paradigm.”

        Since when are WE rational, scientific people responsible for proving YOUR fantasy nonsense BS?!

        To adapt the great response from German virologist Prof. Drosten to a stupid request from a German tabloid, let me say: Da haben wir Skeptiker Besseres zu tun!

        • Jashak, Edzard is asking us to do 6 provings in 100 days, which is ridiculous, as I pointed out. None of us are willing to do that. I made a counter proposal. I am willing to supervise if Edzard and 5 of his So-called Skeptics are willing to be provers. Step up. If you were actually scientifically minded you would want to experience a scientific phenomena that many thousands have experienced, like a proving. Holding your hands over your eyes and shouting, “I cant see it.” is not a scientific stance; but it does seem like the habitual stance of the so-called skeptics.

    • I will if you want. Although as I am confident I won’t be able to tell the difference I don’t see it helping you win any money.

      • I’m not interested in winning any money. The chump change that Edzard is offering is small payment for the hours involved. I am interested in people having an experience of homeopathy. If you are interested send me an email at rrandor [at] gmail

    • No, Roger. That’s not how it works.

      When the results show nothing whatsoever you’ll decide that we weren’t doing things properly; had stood on one leg, left the remedy next to a radio, looked at the bottle in a funny way, eaten the wrong food, drunk the wrong drink, thought the wrong thoughts or whatever imaginary reasons you’ll want to concoct to explain away why the sugar pills had done f**k-all as expected.

      YOU do YOUR provings. Tell the remedies apart. Prove us wrong.

      We won’t wait up, Rog.

      • I dont give a f-k whether we have some grand results to show the world. If you dont take the remedy and dont get any results, well, I could care less. I assume we can do this with mutual respect for the ground rules, including eliminating the herbals that act like homeopathic remedies, as one would do in any proper experiment. I want to see your explanations for why you did experience all the effects of the remedy.

        Homeopaths are not going to do 6 provings in 100 days for Edzard’s chump change.

        • oh Roger, you attempt to weasle out is just too transparent; the 100 day can be extended, if needed [as I pointed out already]. the thing is, you know you cannot meet the challenge, because provings are fake.

  • “Homeopathy: it’s like throwing a car key into the Main River in Würzburg and then trying to start the car with the Main water in Frankfurt.”

    Vince Ebert

    • Edzard, if you and 5 of your So-called Skeptic (SS) cohort are willing to be the provers, I will be the supervisor and we can do the proving once with a single unknown remedy taken from a list of 10 remedies. You get what you want which is to be able to crow if I dont guess the right remedy. And I get what I want which is to have a bunch of the SS do a proving.

      As supervisor I will need to do a health history intake of the provers for the last year, something that takes maybe an hour, more or less. Then I will need to talk to each of the provers for a half an hour each day, more or less, for the first week and somewhat less often later for 3 weeks total. The provers will have to keep a log of their experiences and agree to honestly reply to my questions.

      • Other requirements: 1) the provers must conscientiously take the remedy every day that I tell them to 2) the provers must follow a simple diet without coffee or other herbal supplements 3) the provers must not have any major medical or dental interventions planned during the proving period 4) if they have a partner, the partner must be available and willing to answer my questions regarding the state of mind of the prover. This last requirement is due to the fish-bowl effect. Hard to be objective about changes to one’s own state of mind, like the fish cant see the water. “Im not Angry!” You sure look angry.

      • you can set up your own challenge with your own rules. cheers

        • I have talked to other homeopaths about this. You are not going to get a group of homeopaths to do 6 provings in 100 days or any number of days. We have to make a living. Good luck with that. I am offering you a compromise.

          I suppose you will be happy instead to brag about how we are not up to your challenge.

      • @Roger

        You love to apply constantly Godwin’s law in your commentaries, don’t you? How pathetic.

        • Since the SS want to take away people’s right to choose their form of medical care, as has been expressed here many times, I thnk it is appropriate. Act like the SS and get compared to them.

          • Roger
            “Since the SS want to take away people’s right to choose their form of medical care…”
            That is a lie. We simply want people to make informed choices. Misleading vulnerable people with promises of false cures is not giving them freedom.

  • @Les Rose

    Les said;
    “RG, that is so idiotic a reply that it’s hardly worth my time to debunk it. Science is the business of reducing uncertainty.”

    Ahhhh yes, 55% efficacy gives soooo much more certaintity than 45% efficacy….lol

    What a SCAM CONmed is

  • Strictly speaking, it’s the pharmacies themselves that would get into trouble with the General Pharmaceutical Council for selling unregistered remedies to lay homeopaths outside of very specific conditions – basically for personal use and not for supply to others.

    Whether there is any legal duty on pharmacies to ensure that the products are for personal use is unclear but offering a “practitioner discount” is a problem.

    What should really happen is that lay homeopaths’ clients should be ordering unregistered remedies from the pharmacies themselves.

    • Where have you been UK Homeopathy Regulation?
      I think i must have read sometime on your blog that homeopathic supply from pharmacies is justified by section 10 3 unconsolidated medicines Act.

      You can see from the quote below from 10 3 that products can be dispensed to a person or person under his care.
      Therefore a homeopath can supply to a person under his care?
      Your comments on this will be appreciated.

      Quote from section 10
      (a)the product is prepared or dispensed for administration to that person or to a person under his care,

      • “Section 10(3) of the Act on the other hand provides an exemption to pharmacists from the requirements for a product or manufacturer’s licence, for the supply of a medicinal product prepared to the specification of the client of the pharmacist. The supply of unlicensed products under Section 10(3) does not require a face-to-face consultation and so a product may be ordered by telephone, mail order or by way of the internet, although such products can only be supplied to an individual for their own use or administration to a member of their immediate family (for example supply to the parent or guardian of a child). I understand it is under the scope of Section 10(3) that the registered homeopathic pharmacies operate their online “remedy stores”. ”

        This is from Earl Howe, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. It’s from a letter that was sent to various homeopathy organisations.

  • Thank you for posting this UK Homeopathy Regulations.

    Looking at the letter from Earl Howe and the section 10 3 text i really cannot see how Alan’s original comment is justified.
    Alan seems to state what he would like rather than state the facts.

    Alan Henness said:
    QUOTE
    It would be illegal for a UK manufacturer to supply products that are not either registered or authorised by the MHRA.

  • Not so fast. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 needs to be read, in particular Part 10. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/part/10/made. It would apply to a homeopathic pharmacy supplying to a person not for their personal use or use on a person under their care.

    The MHRA have taken enforcement actions against a number of vendors over the sale of unregistered homeopathic remedies. Including Neals Yard Remedies.

    • Let me explain. Neal’s Yard is a retail outlet They must have been marketing unlicensed products.
      The difference here is between marketing unlicensed products and supplying unlicensed for people under care of a practitioner.
      This is why the present supply route situation continues.
      Supplying unlicensed products for Edzards proving would not involve marketing any products.
      Therefore Edzard and his notary would not be at risk from a down raid by the MHRA should they be handling 6 unlicensed remedies.

  • OMG! Whatever you do Edzard please do not tell serial medicines complainant Alan Henness about this challenge. He could complain to the ANSM stating that you propose a clinical trial in France without ethical approval.

  • Alan Henness said:
    QUOTE
    It would be illegal for a UK manufacturer to supply products that are not either registered or authorised by the MHRA

    Good grief

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories