Homeopathy, celebrities and advertising III: remit, or not remit?

Further to my frustration with being ping-ponged between the Advertising Standards Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, I did eventually receive further correspondence from the latter, as follows:

‘Thank you for your emails with further comments regarding the BHA Celebrity Photography Project website, which have been received.

We have considered the content of your email and the website again and… discussed the issues raised below with colleagues in the Agency. We remain of the opinion that the website is designed to promote homeopathy in general rather than any specific homeopathic medicinal product. It therefore falls outside the remit of the MHRA who regulate the advertising of medicinal products

I see you have contacted the ASA separately about this.

Thank you for your interest.’

Well, quite. I promise not to go on at length this time; but cf. their original response:

‘Thank you for this enquiry.

We have had a quick look at the websites referred to in your complaint.

They appear to be promoting homeopathy in general rather than any specific homeopathic medicinal product. They would therefore fall outside the remit of the MHRA who regulate the advertising of medicinal products.

The Advertising Standards Authority has a more general remit to regulate advertising that would include the promotion of homeopathy services. I see you have already complained to them.

Thank you for your interest.’

Which I read as tantamount to saying that, as far as the MHRA is concerned, celebrity endorsement is fine and dandy if it is merely promotional, and not directly advertising ‘specific homeopathic medicinal product’. But (leaving aside the glaring oxymoron there, which would thus logically mean that the MHRA need never bother itself with homeopathy at all) – and please do correct me if I misread – does it not also concur that this is within the ASA’s remit?

I looked again at the (cough) medicines so enthused upon by that barrel-scraped sample of dotty celebrities, and at the MHRA’s own ‘Homeopathic registrations’ listing. What’s the difference? Ahh, the British Homeopathic Association’s esteemed panel doesn’t name suppliers. (I previously used ‘manufacturers’, but I don’t think, aside from the packaging, that the word actually applies, does it?) Got it! Is that what qualifies as advertising? Perhaps it is just that the homeopathy-speak generic terms happen to match/overlap the specific product names registered under the MHRA scheme. (I’m not sure if this suggests a lack of imagination; or some strategic attempt at coming over all knowledgeably scientific.) So you can name them… without naming them. Genius! However, I still cannot find Arum triph and Causticum, to which I suppose, as these do not appear to be licensed, this coincidence cannot apply. And surely these responsible, authoritative celebrities would not publicly endorse unlicensed products. They’re just using the lingo.

So, I do kind of get the MHRA when it informs me that its statement:

‘Advertising to the public must not contain material which refers to … recommendations by celebrities who, because of their celebrity, could encourage the consumption of medicinal products’

will only trouble it when the celebrity is holding a bottle/packet of the stuff with the manufacturer supplier name visible. But I also get its informing me that:

‘The Advertising Standards Authority has a more general remit to regulate advertising that would include the promotion of homeopathy services.’

(My emphasis in bold.)

If the BHA’s celebrity endorsement is not promotion, I don’t know what it is. And I remain of the opinion that this ought to trouble the ASA. Particularly, when I re-read its position on patient testimonials:

Please note that testimonials from patients (which must be genuine) that imply efficacy for homeopathic treatment do not constitute substantiation but may give a misleading impression that efficacy is proven. Therefore it is essential that any testimonials also only make general references to an improved sense of well-being.’

Again, I’m sure these celebrities believe what they say. (After all, they subscribe to a belief system for people who like to feel all Speh-shull.) But why does the BHA (and many other homeopathy-promoting bodies) seek testimonials, or mine for quotes, by celebrities? Just when does ‘raising awareness’ become ‘promotion’? Depends whether it’s positive or negative. Well, I’m trying to raise awareness here – of the patronising logical fallacy that is the resort to celebrity (presumed) authority. And I’m not promoting a damn thing.

[Footnote: So, until I (despite not being a business trying to sell anything) bite the bullet and fork out for WordPress’s ‘No Ads’ upgrade, so as to block the unintelligent placing of adverts in response to ‘intelligently’ scanned keywords, which has, I’ve come to learn, resulted in embarrassingly ironic instances of  pro-homeopathy adverts appended to posts critical of it, I should stress that these (or any) ads are not endorsed here.]

2 responses to “Homeopathy, celebrities and advertising III: remit, or not remit?

  1. Re-read this extract from your blog:

    ‘The Advertising Standards Authority has a more general remit to regulate advertising that would include the promotion of homeopathy services.’
    (My emphasis in bold.)
    If the BHA’s celebrity endorsement is not promotion, I don’t know what it is. And I remain of the opinion that this ought to trouble the ASA. Particularly, when I re-read its position on patient testimonials:

    The BHA is not providing homeopathy SERVICES, it is a site that provides information. The ASA are clearly meaning SPECIFIC providers of services.

    You sure are a dumb ass for saying you’re a scientist.

    You need to take a long hard look at what you are saying because you sound like an idiot. You are campaigning for the removal of any favourable information of homeopathy. You can campaign til your dying day but campaigners who seek to censor free speech never win-not in this country. Maybe you should move to China or some other country with a repressive regime that seeks to silence those who detract from the party line. I think it might suit you much better than living here in the UK where free speech is rightly seen as a human right. Dickhead!

  2. And finally just a thank you for your efforts. As a result the ASA and the MHRA are quite CLEARLY sick of you and the small band of skeptics that are clogging up an otherwise useful and meaningful system to protect people from unscrupulous advertisers. I know it to be a fact that the ASA are no longer taking complaints against homeopaths. Homeopaths aren’t especially bothered by ASA advice to not name specific indications of diseases. Homeopaths treat people not diseases and there are a myriad amount of ways that homeopaths can express this without falling foul of the CAP code. Both the ASA and the MHRA exist to protect people. They are NOT in the business of banning free speech. Get this into your head and stop wasting their time and yours.

Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s