Review of Medicines Act 1968: Informal consultation on issues relating to the product licences of right (PLR) regime and homeopathy

There was an invitation to respond to this consultation. Here's the email I sent:



Hi.


This whole project is lunacy. Why are you wasting tax-payers money on it? Why don’t you waste your time licensing sunlight and lettuce?


Even thinking about thinking about licenses for homeopathy is an insult to every hard-working NHS professional trying to alleviate people’s suffering using evidence-based practice. Anybody involved in such an endeavour should go take a long hard look at themselves in the bathroom mirror and then flush themselves down the toilet.


There, that’s what I think.


Regards


-        Dave Curtis


--

Professor David Curtis

Consultant and Honorary Professor in Psychiatry

Dept Adult Psychiatry

3rd Floor Outpatient Building

Royal London Hospital

Comments

  1. Just zis Guy, you know?3 February 2011 at 11:00

    Ha! Strikes just the right tone of increduloous fury!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zeno3 February 2011 at 11:00

    Succinct, accurate and to the point!

    Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter Blanchard3 February 2011 at 11:04

    They aren't wasting taxpayers' money. The MHRA say that the regulation of homeopathic remedies is funded entirely by registration fees. Not sure I believe that.

    The MHRA's proposals would generate considerable revenue. Homeopathic remedies with PLRs would need to be re-registered. This will cost the homeopathic pharmacies money. It may well be the case that the costs are too great to justify rarely sold remedies being re-registered. Some products might come off the market.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zeno3 February 2011 at 11:12

    But the MHRA say they would 'not charge the normal fees' (paragraph 14 of the consultation document).

    It seems highly unlikely that the whole of the National Rules scheme has been paid for by their one successful application!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jem3 February 2011 at 13:18

    Terrific email. Hope there are loads more like it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PeterAReynolds20 August 2015 at 15:06

    Excellent.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Email to David Ward MP re Holocaust Memorial Day

Here is the link to the BBC report about David Ward's comments on Holocaust Memorial Day: Lib Dems condemn MP's criticism of Israel ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day In the article he states that he has only had emails from two detractors. So I thought I would be the third. Another detractor 'david@davidward.org.uk' Dear Mr Ward. I see you told the BBC you had only had emails from two detractors. Please consider this a third. I have never written this kind of email or letter before. Most anti-Israel or anti-Jewish statements I just let go past. Your remarks were offensive. What makes things worse is your defiance in the face of criticism. I am happy to accept that not everything Israel does is perfect and that Palestinians do have some grounds for complaint on some matters. Some actions of the state are of questionable legality and some individuals have probably acted in violent or hateful ways and sometimes may have escaped the sanctions they should have been subjected t
Read more

My response to: We must not confuse Trump's bad behavior with mental illness by Allen Frances

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/08/25/allen-frances-we-must-not-confuse-trumps-bad-behavior-with-mental-illness The title is somewhat misleading because in general mental health professionals are not suggesting that Trump suffers a mental illness, as it is commonly understood. They are suggesting that he does indeed meet the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and that he may well be developing dementia. This is not to use these diagnoses as terms of abuse - they are relevant because they may feed into the legal process whereby it is determined whether or not Trump should be removed from office. Frances' position is absurd. In one paragraph he says that he supports the Goldwater rule and in the next he flouts it. The fact that he does so in order to defend Trump is irrelevant. He is clearly debating the diagnosis of somebody he has never met and adduces various facts in the public domain to support his own thoughts on the subject. I do not support the Goldwater
Read more

My response to "listening exercise" on proposed NHS reforms

Arizona is proposing fining obese Medicaid recipients who do not comply with a diet. People are complaining that this represents a "nanny-state" mentality but if the state is providing your healthcare and you are behaving in a way which makes this more expensive, why shouldn't the state try to recoup some of that extra expense? Fining non-dieters sounds impracticable but it would be fairly straightforward to allocate a specific cost to a wide range of activities which would tend to make people less healthy and hence to require more expensive healthcare. One could assign such a cost not only to each cigarette or each unit of alcohol but also each calory of food consumed. Thus there could not only be components of tobacco and alcohol duty which were badged as related to healthcare costs but also a health tax on food and drink related to calorific and salt content. As an example this would either make diet drinks cheaper than their sugar-containing equivalents or else the ma
Read more