It has been reported that a German consumer association, the ‘Verbraucherzentrale NRW’, has first cautioned the manufacturer MEDICE Arzneimittel Pütter GmbH & Co. and then sued them for misleading advertising statements. The advertisement in question gave the wrong impression that their homeopathic remedy MEDITONSIN would:
- for certain generate a health improvement,
- have no side effects,
- be superior to “chemical-synthetic drugs”.
The study used by the manufacturer in support of such claims was not convincing according to the Regional Court of Dortmund. The results of a “large-scale study with more than 1,000 patients” presented a pie chart indicating that 90% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the effect of Meditonsin. However, this was only based on a “pharmacy-based observational study” with little scientific validity, as pointed out by the consumer association. Despite the lack of evidence, the manufacturer claimed that their study “once again impressively confirms the good efficacy and tolerability of Meditonsin® Drops”. The Regional Court of Dortmund disagreed with the manufacturer and agreed with the reasoning of the consumer association.
“It is not permitted to advertise with statements that give the false impression that a successful treatment can be expected with certainty, as suggested by the advertising for Meditonsin Drops,” emphasizes Gesa Schölgens, head of “Faktencheck Gesundheitswerbung,” a joint project of the consumer centers of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate. According to German law, this is prohibited. In addition, the Regional Court of Dortmund considered consumers to be misled by the advertising because the false impression was created that no harmful side effects are to be expected when Meditonsin Drops are taken. The package insert of the drug lists several side effects, according to which there could even be an initial worsening of symptoms after taking the drug.
The claim of advantages of the “natural remedy” represented by the manufacturer in comparison with “chemical-synthetic medicaments, which merely suppress the symptoms”, was also deemed to be inadmissible. Such comparative advertising is inadmissible.
__________________________________
This ruling is, I think, interesting in several ways. The marketing claims of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) products seem all too often not within the limits of the laws. One can therefore hope that this case might inspire many more legal cases against the inadmissible advertising of SCAMs.
23 Responses to A German court ruled against the inadmissible advertising for a homeopathic remedy
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
It’s about time advertising standards bodies got firmer about health claims of ‘alternative’ remedies.
Meditonsin is claimed to be homeopathic, but if it is, it certainly isn’t ‘classical homeopathy’. I think Hahnemann would be furious…..
“The Cochrane Reviews” presently represent the highest standards of clinical efficacy. A total of 1,567 reviews of specific treatments have been analyzed, but only 5.6% of medical treatments have been deemed to be effective.
Let’s stop claiming that the “science has been settled” when this is only true in a very very small percentage of medical treatments.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4031358
I wonder how and why so many conventional drugs can claim to be effective when it seems that alternative treatments are NOT the only ones that have not yet been proven to be effective.
perhaps you should read more than the abstract, Dana.
or my comment: https://edzardernst.com/2022/06/most-healthcare-interventions-tested-in-cochrane-reviews-are-not-supported-by-high-quality-evidence/
Edzie, Edzie, Edie!
The link that you provided to your review of this article was truly hilarious. Thank you for providing this humor.
Did you really really think that your spin on this research is that the vast majority (!) of the 5.6% of trials that showed “efficacy” were from pharmacological interventions. Big friggin’ deal!
The entire point of the review of research by esteemed scholars at Oxford and Stanford and numerous other higher institutions was that a VERY VERY small percentage of interventions are seemingly “evidence based.” This SMALL number of trials from conventional treatments and none from “alternative medicine” simply PROVES that people who live in glass houses should not bath naked.
You’re not a pretty sight naked.
so sorry to hear that you didn’t understand it; perhaps you should read it again.
Mr Ullman, previously in this Blog you claimed that “only fools or liars” doubted that it was possible to tell the difference between homeopathic water and other water.
Could you take a moment now, please, to name a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water?
FIFTY-FIRST time of asking. Thank you.
Mr Ullman, previously in this Blog you claimed that “only fools or liars” doubted that it was possible to tell the difference between homeopathic water and other water.
Could you take a moment now, please, to name a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water?
FIFTIETH time of asking. Thank you.
The ‘Homeopathic water’ has a large price tag attached.
Oh my gosh…homeopathic medicines are commonly under $10.00…so so sorry that this is too much for you.
Some of the more expensive homeopathic medicines can be as much as $30.00!
It is so interesting to watch the projection that occurs at this website. The HUGE expensive of Big Pharma drugs are ignored, despite the evidence that shows that less than 6% of them have a solid experimental basis to their efficacy.
Dana,
When on can go swim in the ocean and get all the natrum muriaticum they want for free, why should anyone pay $10 for it? Is a homeopathic preparation of salt-infused wate blessed by Hahnemann’s ghost? Is that why it costs $10?
@Dana Ullman
Well, even if this is true (and I can’t be bothered right now to go digging for any evidence either way), and ignoring the fact that it is homeopathy and not real medicine on the stand here, then this still means that according to scientific consensus, real medicine is infinitely(*) more effective than homeopathy – as there is no evidence that even one single homeopathic preparation is effective for even one condition.
*: 0.056 ÷ 0.000 = ±∞
According to this jAMA review of research on clinical trials for Covid19, there is a very high “fragility index” for this body of evidence. it seems that so much of conventional medicine is built on JELLO…but it is good that there are still shills for Big Pharma! It seems that Big Pharma needs you.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790259
Oh look. Another paper that our tame imbecile fails to understand. This ongoing public demonstration of your foolishness seems to be done only for our amusement. Nobody pays any heed to you, Dana.
@Lenny
Dana supplied his evidence as requested per the website, you supplied nothing to the conversation except insults. Why don’t you refute specifically your issues with his interpretation of the paper ? … since you believe he is in error.
hmmm
@RG
Do you have any idea at all why Mr Ullman won’t answer my question about a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water? He said in this Blog that “only fools or liars” doubt that this can be done. This brands me a fool or liar, since I doubt. I thought he might have the good manners to provide the information needed to assuage my doubt, but he hasn’t done so. Do you think this is because he can’t, or what? I’ve asked fifty-one times, politely each time but one. What do you think is going on?
@RG
So you didn’t understand the paper either.
And what you call insults I call evidenced statements of fact. Dana is an inconsequential imbecile. Obviously you can prove me wrong if you wish by showing me evidence to the contrary.
😂 Dana keeps providing joy and merryment.
So may be in many cases, but the rest of modern medicine is based on science and solid experience.
The Jello metaphor is quite appropriate actually, seeing that all of homeopathy is only based on (shaken) water and tall tales. Even Jello has some substance, full of nourishing peptides and carbohydrates.
Happy New Year Mr. Ullman. Please keep up the good work making homeopathy look silly
You take so many things out of context…you, like the others, do not respond to the issue at hand here. I quote a JAMA article…Lenny spews but provides no sustainence. When he is called out for this by RG, no adequate response was given.
As for evidence of homeopathy as a nanopharmacology, read my article in this respect scientific journal:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34177397/
Dana
You’re an idiot. Why your specious pleading regarding homeopathy as nanomedicine is nonsense has been explained to you many, many times. That you have refused to learn from this is why you are an idiot.
Homeopathy is not nanopharmacology, is not recognised as nanopharmacology and never will be recognised as nanopharmacology. Your opinion piece in a “respected scientific journal” (impact factor 1.8 – ha!) has achieved what, Dana?
Nothing. You are, as I have stated, utterly inconsequential.
Thank you for once again providing ample proof to sustain my assertions.
An issue at hand here, Mr Ullman, is why, having branded me as being among “fools or liars”, you will not name a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water. Please do. Fifty-second time of asking.
Homeopaths always are looking for possible mechanism of HP effectiveness.
Yes, Water can have a memory – via hydrogen bonds in water.
But this memory fades away ultrafast, in femtosec; this was published in Nature 17 yrs ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15758995/
@Wolfgang M
Which of course is not very smart, because the very first step should be to actually demonstrate any effectiveness in the first place.
So far, not a single homeopathic preparation has been found to show consistent effects in independently repeated experiments. Only when at least one such homeopathic preparation has actually been found does it make sense to try and figure out what mechanism causes those observed effects.
I believe that Mr Ullman posits a different mechanism, based on ‘nanodoses’ of the original substance persisting in the dilution after dozens or even hundreds of dilution steps. Which of course is again not very smart in several respects:
– If measurable amounts (‘nanodoses’) of the original substance are found in a 12C+ homeopathic dilution, then that dilution is by definition less than 12C. It would in fact mean that homeopaths can’t even be trusted to properly dilute things.
– It is extremely unlikely that those ‘nanodoses’ of homeopathic substances, even if present, have any effect. Mr Ullman suggests that his homeopathic ‘nanodoses’ can be compared with hormones (which indeed can have effects in sub-microgram doses) – but this explanation completely ignores the fact that hormones only work because they have evolved as highly specific peptides which can bind to highly specific receptors. So far, no receptors have been identified for any of the substances used in homeopathy – even ignoring the fact that lots of homeopathic base substances such as sodium and calcium salts are present in the body already, often in large amounts.
The belief that a ‘nanodose’ of for instance table salt (Natrium Muriaticum in homeopathic pig Latin) can have any effect whatsoever is nothing short of spectacularly stupid. Yet I have not seen a single homeopath admitting that Natrium Muriaticum is indeed silly and useless. And as long as these people stubbornly stick to their irrational beliefs in this way, they are legitimate targets of ridicule, not to be taken seriously.
@Richard
in regulatory sciences, when one develops a new medicinal product it is outlined to perform a broad range of preclinical tests. This includes molecular characterisation as well as animal tests. If these show acceptable results, you can go to the clinical test series phase I to III. Normaly you can license on product for one indication. Any additional aditional indication needs additional clinical study.
This was not done in HP. Here you take for one indication a full series of different dilutions with different “medicinal products” such as diluted mineral water (different brands), different diluted substances with questionable origin (animals and plants but also minerals, chemical elements) In the end you have about 50.000 different drugs, for treatment of one disease.