Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy - Homeowatch

Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy 41151. Although it goes wider than the scope of this Evidence Check inquiry we must puton record our concern about the length of time the RPSGB appears to be taking toinvestigate and reach conclusions on cases where it has been alleged that its guidelineson the sale of homeopathic products have been breached. We recommend that theGovernment enquires into whether the RPSGB, and from the 2010 handover, theGeneral Pharmaceutical Council, is doing an adequate job in respect of the time takento pursue complaints.Conclusions on the licensing regimes152. The MHRA, with commendable frankness, told our inquiry that it does not considerthat homeopathic medicines have efficacy beyond placebo. The evidence we receivedduring this inquiry supports that conclusion. On that basis, the tests that the MHRA usesto assess non-homeopathic medical products would mean that no homeopathic productswould be licensed by the MHRA. Instead of introducing a blanket requirement forevidence of efficacy, the MHRA operates three licensing regimes for homeopathicproducts, in part, for historical reasons and, in part, it appears, to support the homeopathicindustry. It is unacceptable for the MHRA to license placebo products—in this casesugar pills—conferring upon them some of the status of medicines. Even if medicalclaims on labels are prohibited, the MHRA’s licensing itself lends direct credibility to aproduct. Licensing paves the way for retail in pharmacies and consequently thepatient’s view of the credibility of homeopathy may be further enhanced. We concludethat it is time to break this chain and, as the licensing regimes operated by the MHRAfail the Evidence Check, the MHRA should withdraw its discrete licensing schemes forhomeopathic products.