The legal challenge that could stop homeopathy in its tracks
Bruce Arnold, Lecturer in Law at University of Canberra, investigates the clinical effectiveness of homeopathy.
One hundred years of rigorous scientific research hasn’t dented the faith of adherents of homeopathy. The complementary therapy is still centred on the notion that water has a therapeutic “memory” and that undetectable compounds have a physiological, rather than psychological, effect.
Attempts to regulate or restrict the claims of homeopaths are currently underway. But it might take a legal challenge to ultimately stop homeopaths from promoting cures and treatments that simply don’t work.
Before I explain how, I’ll fill you in on some of the recent background.
After a succession of reports showed homeopathy to be a pseudo-science, it’s likely Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council will advise that it’s “unethical for health practitioners to treat patients using homeopathy, for the reason that homeopathy (as a medicine or procedure) has been shown not to be efficacious”.
This follows a 2010 report by the United Kingdom’s House of Commons Science & Technology Committee, which similarly commented that “beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine”. The committee said further clinical trials of homeopathy were unjustifiable, but in the meantime, the National Health Service should stop subsidisng the treatment.
Earlier this month, Australian Chief Medical Officer Chris Baggoley began a 12-month investigation to determine which, if any, natural therapies are clinically effective. After that period, the government’s private health insurance rebate will cease to cover homoepathy, reiki and other therapies that aren’t evidence based.
But the removal of the rebate is largely symbolic. It won’t dent the faith of many adherents. And, given the public’s appetite for funky miracle cures, it won’t drive charlatans out of the market.
Complementary profits
Homeopathy, along with other forms of complementary medicine such as “magic touch”, is big business. The Commonwealth estimates the complementary medicines industry is worth at $1.2 billion a year, with an annual growth of up to 12%.
But the key regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), is struggling to get a hold of the industry and has been accused of institutional incapacity. Most recently, the watchdog has been embroiled in problems with its lack of transparency, and its oversight of faulty hip and breast implants and weight loss products.
Legal solution?
There is one light on the horizon. It comes from Canada, where a leading law firm has launched a C$30m class action – bringing together a large number of complainants – against a multinational company that is marketing Oscillococcinum, a homeopathic anti-flu product.
The litigants are seeking compensation under Canadian consumer protection law. In essence, they argue the sale of the product is fraudulent: the supposedly therapeutic product is “overpriced sugar… the extreme dilutions used to make it ensure there is not a single molecule left of its supposed medicinal ingredient”.
The class action has not yet been tested in court and the manufacturer will presumably defend its product. But as an indication of the likely outcome, a related litigation in the United States reportedly concluded with a US$12m settlement. The litigants claimed that the manufacturer violated state “unfair competition and false advertising” laws, given there were no detectable active ingredients.
The manufacturer was forced to add a disclaimer to the products, indicating its claims haven’t been evaluated by the US Food & Drug Administration. The labels must also provide an explanation of how the active ingredients have been diluted. The repackaging is estimated to cost US$7m.
Potential Australian litigation
We haven’t yet seen such a class action against providers of homeopathic products. But it’s not precluded by Australian laws, such as the national Competition & Consumer Act 2010. And given the emergence of a class action industry, law suits against vendors of over-the-counter homeopathic pills and potions are probably in the pipeline.
Litigation alone could be enough to prompt manufacturers wind back claims about the efficacy of their concoctions, and lead us towards greater truth in advertising. An informed public might be appropriately reluctant to hand over the cash when reminded that a central tenet of homeopathy is the “law of the infinitesimal dose” – the more dilute the remedy, the greater its potency.
If homeopathic products are acknowledged as having no pharmacologically active ingredients, they can presumably be sold as lolly water. These harmless substances don’t need to be regulated as medications or “supplements” but cannot claim medicinal properties.
If, on the other hand, they are promoted as having active ingredients – rather than a “memory” of having once come into contact with something active – those claims can and should be put to the test.
If the magic ingredient is undetectable, an Australian court might reasonably infer that the ingredient is not present in the “remedy” and that any therapeutic benefit is entirely attributable to the consumer’s faith. In other words, it’s entertainment or a quasi-religious belief rather than medicine.
Such a finding would act as a wake-up call for Australian academia – in particular institutions that rely on the revenue from alternative therapy courses.
It might also encourage policymakers to reconsider the regulatory responsibilities of the TGA and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). In practice, the ACCC acts as the regulator of complementary medicines through restrictions on misleading advertising. It has, for example, warned that suppliers “must ensure that they are not claiming supposed benefits when there is no supportive scientific evidence”.
Most importantly, a court ruling would encourage the Australian community to adopt a more fact-based view of complementary medicine – in particular, to differentiate between what is merely entertainment and what has a tinge of credibility.
This article was originally published by The Conversation. To read the original article, please click here.
Image courtesy: Could a Canadian-style class action dent the credibility of homeopathy in australia? Flickr/kh1234567890
12 Responses to “The legal challenge that could stop homeopathy in its tracks”
Thanks for sharing the article. Very informative article.
Though superficially plausible, this article shows how NOT to attack Homeopathy. As a Homeopathy supporter, though not, as of yet, a practitioner, I would like to see an acknowledgement of the overwhelming clinical evidence that the Homeopathic curative effect is genuine and efficacious far above a mere placebo effect. The principle justification of the placebo accusation is the 2005 stunningly flawed Shang meta-analysis which based its “conclusion” on a grand total of 8 tests (!!).
The attempt to discredit Homeopathy is based, wrongly, on sole or over-reliance upon double blinded placebo controlled tests that may be completely inapplicable and misleading.
They don’t do too well in approval of conventional pharmaceuticals either.
Herbalogy is of course the science of the active alkaloids in plants and the methods of refining and extracting and using those active ingredients. This is the basis for many modern drugs like Aspirin, Ibuprofen, on and on. That is important. Homeopathy is folkloric at best.
Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It’s a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting (not in an ideal artificial laboratory) giving real-world solutions.
[...] years of rigorous scientific research hasn't dented the faith of … Read more on Transforming The Nati [...]
Who is funding these lawsuits and public relations campaign and what is their financial interest in the outcome?
Hi Jinzang,
No lawsuits against homeopathic practice or products have been filed as yet. However, author Bruce Arnold tells us that litigation against a producer and/or provider of homeopathic products is not excluded from Australian laws.
Arnold goes on to suggest, that in the event litigation occurs, the advertising of homeopathic products may become more honest.
The class action suit settled in the U.S. with the manufacturer agreeing to set aside $5 million for consumer refunds, so the figure quoted is not only wrong, it remains to be seen what actual payouts may be based on about 5 bucks per claimant.
The case in Canada is rooted in an anti-Homeopathy group who are actively trolling for staged plaintiffs and not getting any takers besides one of their own members.
The Shang meta-analysis oft-quoted by rabid anti-Homeopathy critics has long been discredited as being soundly unscientific considering it was based on 8 cherry-picked studies that were never referenced by the author. What most don’t know was that it was a hasty knee-jerk reaction to a leaked World Health Organisation report recommending the adoption of more worldwide use of Homeopathic treatment to offset the horrendous cost of pharmaceuticals.
Cuba has been using Homeopathy to prevent annual Leptospirosis outbreaks at one tenth of the cost of conventional vaccines, and ditto for Brazil in the prevention of Dengue Fever.
Homeopathy is the primary choice medical system for hundreds of millions of patients and healthcare practitioners worldwide.
The notion that Homeopathic remedies do not rely on the same chemistry as pharmaceuticals is a tired old straw-man argument that makes no sense.
There is a preponderance of evidence from high quality trials that homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo.
Homeopaths continually refer to uncontrolled trials with few participants and a host of methodological flaws as proof of efficacy. In fact, they are little better than unsubstantiated claims.
It’s interestng that none of the critics mentioned the recent 300 page report on homeopathy by the Swiss Government. This exhaustive seven year study is the most in-depth review of homeopathy ever conducted by a government. The Swiss team evaluated all the research from double-blind and placebo controlled trials, actual clinical effectiveness, safety and finally, cost-effectiveness. The study authors concluded that homeopathy is effective, sometimes more so than conventional treatment, free of side effects and economical. They recommended that homeopathy be covered by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.
In truth, they are not critics, but people who know homeopathy works and want to stop it for that reason. Homeopathy competes with Pharma’s drugs which are expensive, dangerous and don’t cure.
Love it!
The government knows it works but are scared bc if it takes over modern medicine the drug companies lose out billig time