A degree in homoeopathy! That must be worth seeing!
Year 1: Learn how to shake vials of water against a book
Year 2: Make your "patients" feel special
Year 3: Make up evidence.
Year 4: Learn excuses for why homoepathy does not work.
Mrs. Singh, I know that homoepathy is nothing more than tarted-up water in a fancy bottle. Could you please provide some EVIDENCE of the effectiveness of homoepathy?
Login or register to post comments or to complain about this posting
"Through undergraduate and postgraduate training, pharmacists are taught to apply scientific evidence, which in the case of homoeopathy can be lacking, inconclusive or ambiguous."
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever. None. Zero.
Why is the Society refusing to state that homoepathy is no better than placebo at best, and responsible for deaths at worst?
Login or register to post comments or to complain about this posting
Homeopathic pharmacy has always been part of the Pharmaceutical Society and is an important part of the profession of which it should be proud to continue to embrace.
Whilst I understand fully the difficulty for members to accept the nature, action and use of homeopathic products there is nothing unscientific or unethical about their place in pharmacy.
Like it or not homeopathic remedies are medicines in law governed by the Medicines Act and a well established European Directive. The manufacture and dispensing of homeopathic medicines is as ethical, precise and as scientific as conventional dispensing. There are official homeopathic pharmacopoeias and the specialist homeopathic pharmacies and manufacturers in the UK are already governed by MHRA manufacturing and specials licences. Homeopathy is still part of the NHS and tens of thousands of NHS prescriptions are being dispensed by UK pharmacists every year. Many pharmacists, who have an interest in homeopathy, have educated themselves or attended courses so their knowledge and expertise can back up customer demand. In fact I believe these members and the specialists provide a service which fully covers the five ethical points Professor Ernst highlights in his article. If more support for CPD is needed, the Society has many knowledgeable and experienced pharmacists who I'm sure would be prepared to help improve its knowledge base. Finally there have been several studies which have proved homeopathy scientifically, just not enough of them. The direct experience of customer satisfaction, and the relief of conditions which conventional drugs have failed to cure, is a source of encouragement for those pharmacists who really want to help people and a very basic freedom of choice it is very important to preserve.
Login or register to post comments or to complain about this posting
Homeopathic pharmacy has always been part of the Pharmaceutical Society and is an important part of the profession of which it should be proud to continue to embrace > Why? I want nothing to do with the kind of people who claim that magic water in fancy bottles can treat malaria, or AIDS, or cancer. If homeopathy is an important part of the profession, then it is not a profession I wish to belong to.
Homeopathy is still part of the NHS and tens of thousands of NHS prescriptions are being dispensed by UK pharmacists every year. >In other words, about a hundred items a day, across the whole of the UK. Vital stuff that.
Finally there have been several studies which have proved homeopathy scientifically, just not enough of them > You're lying. Or mistaken. To use layman's terms, Mr Morgan should put up, or shut up. It is his responsibility to provide evidence for his fanciful claims.
Login or register to post comments or to complain about this posting
Edzard Ernst’s article “Is it ethical for pharmacists to sell unproven or disproven medicines?” (PJ, 19 July 2008, p75) implies a discussion of all unproven medicines. However, we note that he has omitted to mention those over-the-counter allopathic medicines with no evidence of effectiveness. In fact it is a misleading title for what is just another attack on homoeopathy.
Campaigns to persuade the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate not to register homoeopathic medicines under the relevant legislation and to persuade consumers not to use homoeopathy have failed. Professor Ernst is now trying a new strategy in attempting to shut off supply by embroiling the pharmacy profession in the debate. He takes a large number of words to make a simple point. He believes it is unethical for pharmacists to prescribe and sell homoeopathic medicines because, in his view, there is no evidence of positive outcomes.
We, as pharmacists, say it is ethical and there is evidence. Professor Ernst believes there is often a gap as wide as a canyon between homoeopaths’ and non-homoeopaths’ views of what constitutes evidence.1 Would it, therefore, not be more productive to debate the issue of what constitutes evidence rather than cast aspersions on our professional integrity?
Professor Ernst cites two systematic reviews 2,3 and a comparative meta-analysis4 to support his assertion that only negative evidence is worthy of consideration. Both reviews are his and so employ his own evaluation criteria, while the comparative study has been subject to methodological criticism.5,6 Although the latter paper claimed to be based on over 100 homoeopathy studies, the conclusion was based on only eight. Professor Ernst discounts positive evidence, saying that he considered the two articles that he chose to cite “lacked rigour”.
Homoeopathy may be unproven in the view of Professor Ernst and some others, based on scientific principles, but these are not the only measures of effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not even the gold standard — merely an accepted standard, until something better comes along. For every article defending the rigour and reliability of RCTs, one finds others raising questions about their utility.7,8 Although many RCTs do exist in homoeopathy,9 the validity of the concept has been questioned.10
Homoeopathic outcomes are widely studied using patient-oriented outcome, measures under so called “field conditions” not under the rigid standardised dose regimens that form part of RCT methodology.11 It is acknowledged that historical case reports and observational studies do not rate highly on the hierarchy of evidence scales but, nonetheless, they provide support for the administration of homoeopathy in a wide range of conditions and form the basis of the limited claims of effectiveness allowed by the MHRA for homoeopathic medicines registered under UK national rules.
To suggest that homoeopathy is provided for profit alone is a slur on the good name of our profession. We know our limits of competency. Patients demand the right to choose how they are treated and are prescribed homoeopathic medicines under the NHS. Are we to abrogate our dispensing responsibilities too?
Lack of evidence and inaccuracies in the article spoil the central argument. Where is Professor Ernst’s evidence for the statement “most UK pharmacies have shelves full with herbal remedies, aromatherapy oils, flower remedies and homoeopathic products”? And what does he mean by the healthy profit we are supposed to be making?
His statement “most of the remedies for sale do not contain a single molecule of what it says on the package” is misleading. Medicines at the 6c potency level certainly do contain molecules of the specified source material. He says “necessary or relevant information is not available in UK pharmacies”. This again is untrue and seems to be based on anecdotal evidence, which is apparently acceptable to the author in this instance.
Professor Ernst should stick to his areas of expertise. We will make our own professional judgements without his unsolicited advice.
Lee Kayne
Pharmacy Dean
Faculty of Homoeopathy
Steven Kayne
Hon Consultant Pharmacist
Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital
References
1. Ernst E. The Importance of giving a robust evidence base — a personal view. In: Kayne SB, editor. Homoeopathic Practice. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2008. p34.
2. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homoeopathy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2002;54:577–582
3. Altunc U, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Homoeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2007;82:69–75.
4. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005;366:726–32.
5. Kiene H, Kienle GS, von Schön-Angerer T. Failure to exclude false negative bias: a fundamental flaw in the trial of Shang et al. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicines 2005;11:783.
6. Peters D. Shang et al. Carelessness, collusion, or conspiracy? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicines 2005;11:779–80.
7. Smith G, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003;327:1459–61.
8. Searching for gold standards — the construction and governance of RCTs and EBM in psychiatry. Available at tinyurl.com/5hmtbm (Accessed 29 July 2008)
9. Mathie RT. The research evidence base for homoeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homoeopathy 2003;92:84–91.
10. Weatherley-Jones E, Thompson EA, Thomas KJ. The placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: observations from research experience of individualised homoeopathic treatment. Homoeopathy 2004;93:186–189.
As a research scientist, I am frustrated and appalled by the absurd claims made of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), such as, homoeopathy, Bach flower remedies, Hopi ear candles, aromatherapy and other assaults on scientific rationalism that prey on public gullibility.
As a pharmacist, I am embarrassed by the attitude of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to complementary and alternative medicines — and to homoeopathy particularly — where the scientific evidence base clearly points to no benefit greater than placebo.
Edzard Ernst (PJ, 19 July 2008, p69) has provided a great service in highlighting the disingenuous stance of the Society in not making a clear denunciation of the supply by pharmacists of unproven therapies, which
includes nearly the entire CAM repertory.
David Colquhoun is the author of the science blog dcscience.net, which I commend to all your readers. He describes, with embarrassing detail, in a written transcript “Royal Pharmaceutical Society defends quackery”, his encounters with the Society in trying to get a clear statement from the former director of practice and quality improvement David Pruce. Mr Pruce’s response was waffling and non-committal and I can only hope that he brings more clarity of thinking to bear in his new position at the Society.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the reputation of the profession as a reliable and trustworthy source of information on drugs and their use is at great risk. I believe that the Society’s attitude in not providing clear and unequivocal leadership on this issue says little for it as a responsible professional leader and guardian of the public good.
Moreover, the attitude of profit over evidence and ethics appears to pervade other aspects of the Society’s activities. The Society’s publishing arm lists a number of titles that pander to the CAM market. They include two titles on homoeopathy and the oxymoronic ‘Aromatherapy science’.
Most pharmacists and outside observers of the Society’s activities would expect these activities, whether they are leadership roles, protection of the public or commercial enterprises, such as publishing, to be based on scientific and ethical principles. I do not believe this is the case at present.
I hope that Professor Ernst’s contribution will provoke an urgent and thorough re-evaluation by the Society of its attitude towards the supply of unproven products, such as homoeopathic preparations and other forms of CAM.
Gary Baxter
Professor of Pharmacology Welsh School of Pharmacy
Login or register to post comments or to complain about this posting
A degree in homoeopathy!
"Through undergraduate and
Keep homeopathy within the Society- John Morgan MRPharmS
Poor logic
Oh yes you can. That's exactly the point of science rather than faith.
>I am a believer in God but can anyone prove his existence?
This is a basic logical error. Beliving something doesn't make it true. Extend your logic to the tooth fairy and you'll see the fatal flaw.
Homeopathic pharmacy has
And look, there's some
Homeopathy Trials
Yes, yes, very good. Found
From Dr L. R. Kayne, MRPharmS, and Dr S. B. Kayne, FRPharmS
Campaigns to persuade the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate not to register homoeopathic medicines under the relevant legislation and to persuade consumers not to use homoeopathy have failed. Professor Ernst is now trying a new strategy in attempting to shut off supply by embroiling the pharmacy profession in the debate. He takes a large number of words to make a simple point. He believes it is unethical for pharmacists to prescribe and sell homoeopathic medicines because, in his view, there is no evidence of positive outcomes.
We, as pharmacists, say it is ethical and there is evidence. Professor Ernst believes there is often a gap as wide as a canyon between homoeopaths’ and non-homoeopaths’ views of what constitutes evidence.1 Would it, therefore, not be more productive to debate the issue of what constitutes evidence rather than cast aspersions on our professional integrity?
Professor Ernst cites two systematic reviews 2,3 and a comparative meta-analysis4 to support his assertion that only negative evidence is worthy of consideration. Both reviews are his and so employ his own evaluation criteria, while the comparative study has been subject to methodological criticism.5,6 Although the latter paper claimed to be based on over 100 homoeopathy studies, the conclusion was based on only eight. Professor Ernst discounts positive evidence, saying that he considered the two articles that he chose to cite “lacked rigour”.
Homoeopathy may be unproven in the view of Professor Ernst and some others, based on scientific principles, but these are not the only measures of effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not even the gold standard — merely an accepted standard, until something better comes along. For every article defending the rigour and reliability of RCTs, one finds others raising questions about their utility.7,8 Although many RCTs do exist in homoeopathy,9 the validity of the concept has been questioned.10
Homoeopathic outcomes are widely studied using patient-oriented outcome, measures under so called “field conditions” not under the rigid standardised dose regimens that form part of RCT methodology.11 It is acknowledged that historical case reports and observational studies do not rate highly on the hierarchy of evidence scales but, nonetheless, they provide support for the administration of homoeopathy in a wide range of conditions and form the basis of the limited claims of effectiveness allowed by the MHRA for homoeopathic medicines registered under UK national rules.
To suggest that homoeopathy is provided for profit alone is a slur on the good name of our profession. We know our limits of competency. Patients demand the right to choose how they are treated and are prescribed homoeopathic medicines under the NHS. Are we to abrogate our dispensing responsibilities too?
Lack of evidence and inaccuracies in the article spoil the central argument. Where is Professor Ernst’s evidence for the statement “most UK pharmacies have shelves full with herbal remedies, aromatherapy oils, flower remedies and homoeopathic products”? And what does he mean by the healthy profit we are supposed to be making?
His statement “most of the remedies for sale do not contain a single molecule of what it says on the package” is misleading. Medicines at the 6c potency level certainly do contain molecules of the specified source material. He says “necessary or relevant information is not available in UK pharmacies”. This again is untrue and seems to be based on anecdotal evidence, which is apparently acceptable to the author in this instance.
Professor Ernst should stick to his areas of expertise. We will make our own professional judgements without his unsolicited advice.
Lee Kayne
Pharmacy Dean
Faculty of Homoeopathy
Steven Kayne
Hon Consultant Pharmacist
Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital
References
1. Ernst E. The Importance of giving a robust evidence base — a personal view. In: Kayne SB, editor. Homoeopathic Practice. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2008. p34.
2. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homoeopathy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2002;54:577–582
3. Altunc U, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Homoeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2007;82:69–75.
4. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005;366:726–32.
5. Kiene H, Kienle GS, von Schön-Angerer T. Failure to exclude false negative bias: a fundamental flaw in the trial of Shang et al. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicines 2005;11:783.
6. Peters D. Shang et al. Carelessness, collusion, or conspiracy? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicines 2005;11:779–80.
7. Smith G, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003;327:1459–61.
8. Searching for gold standards — the construction and governance of RCTs and EBM in psychiatry. Available at tinyurl.com/5hmtbm (Accessed 29 July 2008)
9. Mathie RT. The research evidence base for homoeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homoeopathy 2003;92:84–91.
10. Weatherley-Jones E, Thompson EA, Thomas KJ. The placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: observations from research experience of individualised homoeopathic treatment. Homoeopathy 2004;93:186–189.
11. Kayne SB. Homoeopathic Pharmacy. 2nd Edition. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2007. pp281–285.
From Professor G. F. Baxter, MRPharmS
As a pharmacist, I am embarrassed by the attitude of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to complementary and alternative medicines — and to homoeopathy particularly — where the scientific evidence base clearly points to no benefit greater than placebo.
Edzard Ernst (PJ, 19 July 2008, p69) has provided a great service in highlighting the disingenuous stance of the Society in not making a clear denunciation of the supply by pharmacists of unproven therapies, which includes nearly the entire CAM repertory.
David Colquhoun is the author of the science blog dcscience.net, which I commend to all your readers. He describes, with embarrassing detail, in a written transcript “Royal Pharmaceutical Society defends quackery”, his encounters with the Society in trying to get a clear statement from the former director of practice and quality improvement David Pruce. Mr Pruce’s response was waffling and non-committal and I can only hope that he brings more clarity of thinking to bear in his new position at the Society.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the reputation of the profession as a reliable and trustworthy source of information on drugs and their use is at great risk. I believe that the Society’s attitude in not providing clear and unequivocal leadership on this issue says little for it as a responsible professional leader and guardian of the public good.
Moreover, the attitude of profit over evidence and ethics appears to pervade other aspects of the Society’s activities. The Society’s publishing arm lists a number of titles that pander to the CAM market. They include two titles on homoeopathy and the oxymoronic ‘Aromatherapy science’.
Most pharmacists and outside observers of the Society’s activities would expect these activities, whether they are leadership roles, protection of the public or commercial enterprises, such as publishing, to be based on scientific and ethical principles. I do not believe this is the case at present.
I hope that Professor Ernst’s contribution will provoke an urgent and thorough re-evaluation by the Society of its attitude towards the supply of unproven products, such as homoeopathic preparations and other forms of CAM.
Gary Baxter
Professor of Pharmacology Welsh School of Pharmacy