And I thought that you weren't allowed to state a use from a homeopathic Rx any more!!! Or maybe the EU rules haven't yet started.
Rochelle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
zanif-Z
Zanif-Z is an effective sleeping pill that will help you get the sleep you've been missing. This amazing product speeds up the process of falling asleep by easing you into a more relaxed state.
Zanif-Z is a 100% Homeopathic medicine Made from some of the purest ingredients on earth under the strictest quality control standards.
Our delivery system of placing tablets under the tongue is one of the fastest and safest there is. By dissolving the tablets under the tongue, we completely bypass the digestive track where interference could occur. Zanif-Z goes directly into the blood stream where the effects can be felt in minutes.
SAFE - NATURAL - NO SIDE EFFECTS
Price is for a bottle of 30 tablets and includes Post, Packaging and VAT.
Price: £7.49 (€9.06)
can be felt in minutes.
(And from a site in USA I found:-)
Made from some of the purest ingredients on earth under the strictest quality control standards of the FDA.
* CoffeaCruda - From coffe beans, over stimulates, is a remedy for people who have trouble winding down.
* Kali Carbonicum - Improves cellular function
* Arsenicum Album - Treats a range of symptoms that include insomnia anxiety, depression and obsessive compulsive disorder.
* Nux Vomica - A remedy especially effective for the ambitious, perfectionist person who can not wind down easily.
* Valerian - (Valeriana Officinalis - botanical name) root from valerian plant which grows all over Europe Used for insomnia,nervous conditions, digestive and liver problems,nausea.Makes sleep more restful and making transition to sleep easier.Targets the GBAB-A receptors in the brain.
Registered Homeopath with The Society of Homeopaths
EFT (Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk
Just come across this !!!
-
Roger Van Zandvoort
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
the FDA insists that some use be stated on the label but it usually is not
so specific. this must not be a label but an advertisement.
there is also a below the radar process that happens with large corporations and
government agencies. they get away with saying/doing many things when they
are in general cahoots with the agency. have to wonder about this product and its
mftr.
tanya
so specific. this must not be a label but an advertisement.
there is also a below the radar process that happens with large corporations and
government agencies. they get away with saying/doing many things when they
are in general cahoots with the agency. have to wonder about this product and its
mftr.
tanya
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
The advertisement is perfectly in keeping with Big Pharma's desperate attempt to discredit homoeopathy. "Scientific" consistency demands that regulators in Big Pharma's pocket permit any snake oil to be labelled "homoeopathic", to confuse the public as to the meaning of the word, just as long as the medicine
(a) is not homoeopathic to anything,
(b) cannot possibly be homoeopathic to anything,
(c) is prescribed for its allopathic effects (e.g. "Improves cellular function"; "Treats a range of symptoms"; "Used for… digestive and liver problems"; and "Targets the GBAB-A [sic] receptors"), and
(d) displays utter ignorance not only of homoeopathy but also of the subject of its allopathic claims [even managing to misspell GABA(A)].
The advertisement is well-designed to confuse public understanding of homoeopathy and to suggest that homoeopaths can't spell (which, it's undeniable, many cannot—some regular contributors to this list remaining incompetent to spell something as common as "complementary").
It's perfectly in keeping with the rest of the strategy: denial of the very existence of all evidence for homoeopathy's effectiveness even in ultramolecular doses; substitution of primary-school chemistry comprehension for research results; and totalitarian responses to the slightest indication, real or imagined, that the economically threatening alternatives to toxic cocktails may have the potential to harm a single innocent if consumed in unimaginable quantities—alongside stoic indifference to all the injuries, crippling disease, maiming, and manslaughter (see the signature below!) that result from prescribing toxic chemicals "correctly".
John
(a) is not homoeopathic to anything,
(b) cannot possibly be homoeopathic to anything,
(c) is prescribed for its allopathic effects (e.g. "Improves cellular function"; "Treats a range of symptoms"; "Used for… digestive and liver problems"; and "Targets the GBAB-A [sic] receptors"), and
(d) displays utter ignorance not only of homoeopathy but also of the subject of its allopathic claims [even managing to misspell GABA(A)].
The advertisement is well-designed to confuse public understanding of homoeopathy and to suggest that homoeopaths can't spell (which, it's undeniable, many cannot—some regular contributors to this list remaining incompetent to spell something as common as "complementary").
It's perfectly in keeping with the rest of the strategy: denial of the very existence of all evidence for homoeopathy's effectiveness even in ultramolecular doses; substitution of primary-school chemistry comprehension for research results; and totalitarian responses to the slightest indication, real or imagined, that the economically threatening alternatives to toxic cocktails may have the potential to harm a single innocent if consumed in unimaginable quantities—alongside stoic indifference to all the injuries, crippling disease, maiming, and manslaughter (see the signature below!) that result from prescribing toxic chemicals "correctly".
John
-
Theresa Partington
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
I just had a discussion document from the MHRA (mhra.gov.uk) people about this. They are proposing having well-known specifics labelled by usage and others not. Each with a disclaimer saying
“A homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of ….” Or “A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety, quality and use within the homeopathic tradition”
You can read the whole thing on their website. Personally I didn’t think this was too bad.
Theresa
“A homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of ….” Or “A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety, quality and use within the homeopathic tradition”
You can read the whole thing on their website. Personally I didn’t think this was too bad.
Theresa
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
Pardon my cynicism but what comes to mind if this is what is happening is that they are
working to limit the use of remedies. You know the FDA works this way and under the Codex
authority they will work even harder to try and control our remedies. The Codex supports the
FDA position that every drug needs to be tested for each and every use proposed. This
applies to vitamins, and herbs, too. It is clearly part of their intentional effort to dessemate
all holistic forms of healing.
I don't believe or trust one single word coming from these people.
Last nite went to see a documentary: The World According to Monsanto. I had seen it, or
much of its footage before. But was reminded again of their sleaze by several top scientists
who were trashed by the FDA or their governments (Canada, UK) when they published their
reports on the dangers of GMOs. Several of these people and others working actively to
control GMO stated openly that they would not trust anything coming from the FDA or Monsanto,
or any ot their people on these issues. Homeopathy is just another issue for us to be very protective.
tanya
working to limit the use of remedies. You know the FDA works this way and under the Codex
authority they will work even harder to try and control our remedies. The Codex supports the
FDA position that every drug needs to be tested for each and every use proposed. This
applies to vitamins, and herbs, too. It is clearly part of their intentional effort to dessemate
all holistic forms of healing.
I don't believe or trust one single word coming from these people.
Last nite went to see a documentary: The World According to Monsanto. I had seen it, or
much of its footage before. But was reminded again of their sleaze by several top scientists
who were trashed by the FDA or their governments (Canada, UK) when they published their
reports on the dangers of GMOs. Several of these people and others working actively to
control GMO stated openly that they would not trust anything coming from the FDA or Monsanto,
or any ot their people on these issues. Homeopathy is just another issue for us to be very protective.
tanya
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
The discussion document that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRC), a British government body, makes available (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Con ... /CON105929) on the topic is, aside from the odd slip, a document of admirable readability and transparency that Australia's TGA could learn much from.
It says what it means, it defines its terms, and it discusses things in a comprehensible order (unlike the TGA's best efforts to communicate with the public, which communicate only endemic language incompetence). Though Tanya's misgivings are generally justified, I can highly recommend the document as a starting point for thinking about regulation of homoeopathic medicines in the U.K. and for making submissions to the process by the closing date of 18 February this year.
Page two of the document briefly lists five different schemes under which somebody can license a product. The MHRA is proposing to rapidly phase out the first, Product Licences of Right (PLRs), transferring the remaining 500 medicines (some for homoeopathic use) still on that scheme to one of two other suitable schemes:
• the Simplified Scheme, under which products are supplied without indications, or
• the National Rules Scheme (NRS), under which products can presently be marked with indications for relief of mild, self-limiting conditions.
The fourth and fifth schemes are Traditional Herbal Registration, again giving minor indications; and Marketing Authorisation, entailing great expense.
The Simplified Scheme is available to all medicines that meet the MHRA's definition (which looks reasonable but could be improved) of homoeopathic medicines.
The question, then, is whether there is value to patients or to homoeopathy in perpetuating use of the National Rules Scheme for such medicines as it presently operates; i.e., in perpetuating manufacturers' suggestions that a medicine may be homoeopathically related to a generally defined (mild, self-limiting) condition (such as cough, cold, indigestion, or mild diarrhoea).
It's my contention that such "indications" are a fundamental abuse of the very concept of the homoeopathic relationship and are a sure and efficient way to confuse public understanding of that concept. As anybody with any learning in homoeopathy knows, the homoeopathic relationship is one of symptomatic similarity and is therefore not predictable on the basis of allopathic diagnosis, which by and large overlooks the symptoms of greatest interest in homoeopathic prescribing, which are the symptoms characteristic of the individual's response to the illness.
Now, the MHRA's proposal, which Theresa seems to have slightly misunderstood, is not to perpetuate the myth that one can find a homoeopathic replacement for an allopathic medicine specific to a particular class of complaint. It is instead to replace labelling of this phrasing under the NRS --
"A homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of ...."
-- with this one:
"A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety, quality and use within the homeopathic tradition".
Read each carefully. The first, the present wording, states baldly that within the "homeopathic tradition" (is homoeopathy really based on tradition, or is it based on pathogenetic trials?) this product is used for the relief (not cure) of a certain allopathic class of illnesses. Nothing could be more misleading.
The second, the MHRA's proposed wording, states that the product is a "homeopathic medicinal" one (not technically accurate, but good enough for a two-word description) and that it is licensed (only) on the basis of its safety, quality, and the fact that it is used within the homoeopathic "tradition". Leaving aside the observation that any traditional use of medicine cannot also have a homoeopathic basis, this wording is close to ideal in simply and straightforwardly stating that the medicine is for homoeopathic use without misleading the reader into imagining that a homoeopathic use might take the name of a condition (such as "cough") as a basis for prescription.
In my view, all homoeopathic medicines would ideally be licensed under either the Simplified Scheme or the NRS, and the NRS's proposed label phrasing would ideally be amended for technical accuracy to reflect homoeopathy's basis in trials rather than in tradition and to distinguish "homoeopathic" preparation (i.e. dynamisation, rather than intent) from "homoeopathic" use (i.e. prescription on the basis of symptom similarity, rather than in any tradition).
One phrasing reflecting these considerations would be:
"A homeopathically prepared medicinal product licensed on the basis of safety, quality, and suitability for homeopathic use",
which is no longer than the MHRA's proposed wording.
Even clearer (and more succinct) would be:
"A medicinal product licensed on the basis of safety, quality, and suitability for homeopathic use".
Cheers --
John
It says what it means, it defines its terms, and it discusses things in a comprehensible order (unlike the TGA's best efforts to communicate with the public, which communicate only endemic language incompetence). Though Tanya's misgivings are generally justified, I can highly recommend the document as a starting point for thinking about regulation of homoeopathic medicines in the U.K. and for making submissions to the process by the closing date of 18 February this year.
Page two of the document briefly lists five different schemes under which somebody can license a product. The MHRA is proposing to rapidly phase out the first, Product Licences of Right (PLRs), transferring the remaining 500 medicines (some for homoeopathic use) still on that scheme to one of two other suitable schemes:
• the Simplified Scheme, under which products are supplied without indications, or
• the National Rules Scheme (NRS), under which products can presently be marked with indications for relief of mild, self-limiting conditions.
The fourth and fifth schemes are Traditional Herbal Registration, again giving minor indications; and Marketing Authorisation, entailing great expense.
The Simplified Scheme is available to all medicines that meet the MHRA's definition (which looks reasonable but could be improved) of homoeopathic medicines.
The question, then, is whether there is value to patients or to homoeopathy in perpetuating use of the National Rules Scheme for such medicines as it presently operates; i.e., in perpetuating manufacturers' suggestions that a medicine may be homoeopathically related to a generally defined (mild, self-limiting) condition (such as cough, cold, indigestion, or mild diarrhoea).
It's my contention that such "indications" are a fundamental abuse of the very concept of the homoeopathic relationship and are a sure and efficient way to confuse public understanding of that concept. As anybody with any learning in homoeopathy knows, the homoeopathic relationship is one of symptomatic similarity and is therefore not predictable on the basis of allopathic diagnosis, which by and large overlooks the symptoms of greatest interest in homoeopathic prescribing, which are the symptoms characteristic of the individual's response to the illness.
Now, the MHRA's proposal, which Theresa seems to have slightly misunderstood, is not to perpetuate the myth that one can find a homoeopathic replacement for an allopathic medicine specific to a particular class of complaint. It is instead to replace labelling of this phrasing under the NRS --
"A homeopathic medicinal product used within the homeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of ...."
-- with this one:
"A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety, quality and use within the homeopathic tradition".
Read each carefully. The first, the present wording, states baldly that within the "homeopathic tradition" (is homoeopathy really based on tradition, or is it based on pathogenetic trials?) this product is used for the relief (not cure) of a certain allopathic class of illnesses. Nothing could be more misleading.
The second, the MHRA's proposed wording, states that the product is a "homeopathic medicinal" one (not technically accurate, but good enough for a two-word description) and that it is licensed (only) on the basis of its safety, quality, and the fact that it is used within the homoeopathic "tradition". Leaving aside the observation that any traditional use of medicine cannot also have a homoeopathic basis, this wording is close to ideal in simply and straightforwardly stating that the medicine is for homoeopathic use without misleading the reader into imagining that a homoeopathic use might take the name of a condition (such as "cough") as a basis for prescription.
In my view, all homoeopathic medicines would ideally be licensed under either the Simplified Scheme or the NRS, and the NRS's proposed label phrasing would ideally be amended for technical accuracy to reflect homoeopathy's basis in trials rather than in tradition and to distinguish "homoeopathic" preparation (i.e. dynamisation, rather than intent) from "homoeopathic" use (i.e. prescription on the basis of symptom similarity, rather than in any tradition).
One phrasing reflecting these considerations would be:
"A homeopathically prepared medicinal product licensed on the basis of safety, quality, and suitability for homeopathic use",
which is no longer than the MHRA's proposed wording.
Even clearer (and more succinct) would be:
"A medicinal product licensed on the basis of safety, quality, and suitability for homeopathic use".
Cheers --
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
Hi John,
I'm pleased we have someone like you who goes around and reads these papers for us - it sounds interesting and we should become better informed and more active in these areas.
I would like to make a couple of points about some things you say though.
You and I agree on most things and you know that as a homeopath I don't treat with complexes - not because they are a 'no-no' but because:
1. They are awkward, clumsy and totally unreliable for chronic treatment and management.
2. Their encouraged use at a practitioner level weakens our knowledge and practices and corrupts the profession's ability to pass on a system to those who come after us in which medicines can be reliably prescribed in, "...the shortest, least harmful way, according to easily comprehensible principles."
On the other hand, I believe that people should not be deprived of the right to provide or purchase complexes. I also believe, with good evidence, that the growth of homeopathy proper has well and truly been fuelled by the initial use of complex remedies. They can be a boon during times of disasters, epidemics and limited training or resources. Yes, the single remedy would be fantastic and should be what we all strive for but at these times it is often impractical and people should not be sacrificed on the alter of philosophical purity.
You say:
I know what you are getting at but if people were to assume that on this basis that all complexes are bad and don't work, then they would be horribly misled. They do work - and not just on the basis of randomness (as Hahnemann described with the historical evidence of a new and similar diseases curing existing diseases in those lucky enough to contract them) but through calculated selection by the mixer according to likely similiarity.
Wouldn't it be better to accept the existence of complexes and work on public and regulator education - what they are, what they should be called (potentised rather than homeopathic remedies) their limitations, how they should be used and when they shouldn't? With good understanding, everyone would then be happy and complexes could be kept in their rightful place (which, you may be thinking, is well away from you!
)
I see the problems currently as being:
* Complexes are being manufactured by those who do not understand the effects of potentisation or homeopathy at all yet they are still trying to call them homeopathic. I have never heard of some of the things included in some complexes - they certainly don't come from the standard homeopathic pharmacopaies. Any manufacturer should be able to justify why they have been included the components they have - there should be some sort of verifiable association with the problem they are claimed to treat.
* Potentised substances are being mixed with other therapeutic ingredients yet advertising for them still implies that the product is safe or effective because it is homeopathic or potentised.
* Manufacturers are not advising the consumer that the product will only work if the needed remedy has been included in the mix - and that it won't if it is missing.
* Manufacturers are not advising consumers and regulators that in spite of their best choices, 'cancelling out effects' between remedies in combination are still unknown - that a remedy given individually may work better than when combined. The same goes of potency scales combined in a remedy - we have no idea what is happening when this is done.
* Few manufactures are not providing instructions about the need to match frequency of repetition to the severity of the symptoms or to consumer sensitivity.
* Few manufacturers discuss the likelihood or meaning of aggravations.
* Few manufacture advise the maximum number of doses to use if there is no improvement from the complex - and then what to do (ie, see a homeopath?)
* Few manufacturers advise on how to store the remedy or what can damage the efficacy of the remedy (ie, we now know that mobile phones and microwave emmissions).
IMO, the above areas are where the problems lie and where public and regulating authority education is needed. This is where I would like to see our efforts directed. If this takes place it will resolve one of the problems you are concerned about - that people will be receiving amateurish and inadequate treatment by someone who is meant to be a homeopath - because they now have the information about what's what as well and can make some discriminations.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
I'm pleased we have someone like you who goes around and reads these papers for us - it sounds interesting and we should become better informed and more active in these areas.
I would like to make a couple of points about some things you say though.
You and I agree on most things and you know that as a homeopath I don't treat with complexes - not because they are a 'no-no' but because:
1. They are awkward, clumsy and totally unreliable for chronic treatment and management.
2. Their encouraged use at a practitioner level weakens our knowledge and practices and corrupts the profession's ability to pass on a system to those who come after us in which medicines can be reliably prescribed in, "...the shortest, least harmful way, according to easily comprehensible principles."
On the other hand, I believe that people should not be deprived of the right to provide or purchase complexes. I also believe, with good evidence, that the growth of homeopathy proper has well and truly been fuelled by the initial use of complex remedies. They can be a boon during times of disasters, epidemics and limited training or resources. Yes, the single remedy would be fantastic and should be what we all strive for but at these times it is often impractical and people should not be sacrificed on the alter of philosophical purity.
You say:
I know what you are getting at but if people were to assume that on this basis that all complexes are bad and don't work, then they would be horribly misled. They do work - and not just on the basis of randomness (as Hahnemann described with the historical evidence of a new and similar diseases curing existing diseases in those lucky enough to contract them) but through calculated selection by the mixer according to likely similiarity.
Wouldn't it be better to accept the existence of complexes and work on public and regulator education - what they are, what they should be called (potentised rather than homeopathic remedies) their limitations, how they should be used and when they shouldn't? With good understanding, everyone would then be happy and complexes could be kept in their rightful place (which, you may be thinking, is well away from you!
)I see the problems currently as being:
* Complexes are being manufactured by those who do not understand the effects of potentisation or homeopathy at all yet they are still trying to call them homeopathic. I have never heard of some of the things included in some complexes - they certainly don't come from the standard homeopathic pharmacopaies. Any manufacturer should be able to justify why they have been included the components they have - there should be some sort of verifiable association with the problem they are claimed to treat.
* Potentised substances are being mixed with other therapeutic ingredients yet advertising for them still implies that the product is safe or effective because it is homeopathic or potentised.
* Manufacturers are not advising the consumer that the product will only work if the needed remedy has been included in the mix - and that it won't if it is missing.
* Manufacturers are not advising consumers and regulators that in spite of their best choices, 'cancelling out effects' between remedies in combination are still unknown - that a remedy given individually may work better than when combined. The same goes of potency scales combined in a remedy - we have no idea what is happening when this is done.
* Few manufactures are not providing instructions about the need to match frequency of repetition to the severity of the symptoms or to consumer sensitivity.
* Few manufacturers discuss the likelihood or meaning of aggravations.
* Few manufacture advise the maximum number of doses to use if there is no improvement from the complex - and then what to do (ie, see a homeopath?)
* Few manufacturers advise on how to store the remedy or what can damage the efficacy of the remedy (ie, we now know that mobile phones and microwave emmissions).
IMO, the above areas are where the problems lie and where public and regulating authority education is needed. This is where I would like to see our efforts directed. If this takes place it will resolve one of the problems you are concerned about - that people will be receiving amateurish and inadequate treatment by someone who is meant to be a homeopath - because they now have the information about what's what as well and can make some discriminations.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Just come across this !!!
Hi, Fran --
Yes, by and large, I agree with what you're saying here. And my message, you may notice, did not address either the safety or the effectiveness of parahomoeopathic practices such as prescription of complexes. To my mind, if (and it's a big if) their long-term effects are acceptable and if that introduces people to the notion that dynamised medicines are not identical with sugar pills, then fine; but, as you (I think) accept, they can properly go under their own name and not contaminate the name of homoeopathy.
It may well be proper that a complex is manufactured, marketed, and used for a specific class of illnesses (such as cough) and -- drawing a long bow -- it may be the case that this does absolutely no harm in most instances. That is still no reason to confuse the practice with homoeopathy.
To mistake opposition to such confusion for opposition to the practice is to add to the confusion.
Your list of the problems in manufacture and marketing of complexes for complexopathy is a good one, and it's not a list of problems we need in homoeopathy as well! The particular problem that "Manufacturers are not advising the consumer that the product will only work if the needed remedy has been included in the mix — and that it won't if it is missing" of course suggests (mildly) that if the medicine homoeopathic to the patient is included in the mix then it may "work". I know of no research to support this notion, popular as it is amongst the pseudopaths, though perhaps this depends on what anybody means by "work". Also, the warning would only be relevant if there were some realistic intent that the substance homoeopathic to the patient's entire state of illness were included -- an intent that cannot be seriously contemplated. But I do agree (if this is your meaning) that the convenient pretence that this relatively random mixture of substances might in some magical way prove to be homoeopathic -- or to contain a substance that will put itself forward uniquely as being homoeopathic -- to the patient should be addressed.
Thanks!
John
Yes, by and large, I agree with what you're saying here. And my message, you may notice, did not address either the safety or the effectiveness of parahomoeopathic practices such as prescription of complexes. To my mind, if (and it's a big if) their long-term effects are acceptable and if that introduces people to the notion that dynamised medicines are not identical with sugar pills, then fine; but, as you (I think) accept, they can properly go under their own name and not contaminate the name of homoeopathy.
It may well be proper that a complex is manufactured, marketed, and used for a specific class of illnesses (such as cough) and -- drawing a long bow -- it may be the case that this does absolutely no harm in most instances. That is still no reason to confuse the practice with homoeopathy.
To mistake opposition to such confusion for opposition to the practice is to add to the confusion.
Your list of the problems in manufacture and marketing of complexes for complexopathy is a good one, and it's not a list of problems we need in homoeopathy as well! The particular problem that "Manufacturers are not advising the consumer that the product will only work if the needed remedy has been included in the mix — and that it won't if it is missing" of course suggests (mildly) that if the medicine homoeopathic to the patient is included in the mix then it may "work". I know of no research to support this notion, popular as it is amongst the pseudopaths, though perhaps this depends on what anybody means by "work". Also, the warning would only be relevant if there were some realistic intent that the substance homoeopathic to the patient's entire state of illness were included -- an intent that cannot be seriously contemplated. But I do agree (if this is your meaning) that the convenient pretence that this relatively random mixture of substances might in some magical way prove to be homoeopathic -- or to contain a substance that will put itself forward uniquely as being homoeopathic -- to the patient should be addressed.
Thanks!
John