I might be a “victim” of homoeopathy

Government response to Science and Technology committee July 2010.

“Conversely, if regulation was applied to homeopathic medicines as understood in the context of conventional pharmaceutical medicines, these products would have to be withdrawn from the market as medicines. This would constrain consumer choice and, more importantly, risk the introduction of unregulated, poor quality and potentially unsafe products on the market to satisfy consumer demand.”

This argument passed me by first time, but on rereading I see that it is the same argument made for the legalisation and regulation of many currently prohibited substances.

I note in passing the MHRA consultation on this closed today, quietly, and hardly anyone noticed there was a consultation. The consultative document is carefully crafted to effectively not change the current procedures substantially, but to report back to their masters that they did the reviews the Science and Technology Committee recommended.

If it goes through as is, you’ll be able to make indications based on the homoeopathic tradition, thus enshrining in law a preference for white, gullible, middle class traditions, over those traditions of gullible (non-European) foreigners. I’m sure this is racist, but I’m not sure who is the victim – those whose traditions are privileged or those whose traditions weren’t.

In other news I found an interesting looking dietary supplement in the pharmacy whilst waiting for my prescription to be filled, but since they sell a load of homoeopathic products I just assumed the amazing claims on the packet were probably fictitious. I may have become a “victim” of homoeopathy through induction of apathy, in this case Lloyds pharmacy were the people who lost money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.