Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mordi Skeptics Submission to TGA Review Panel 11-3-11

Mordi Skeptics Submission to TGA Review Panel 11-3-11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
Published by Tim Harding
Recent submission by Mordi Skeptics to the TGA Transparency Review
Recent submission by Mordi Skeptics to the TGA Transparency Review

More info:

Published by: Tim Harding on Mar 22, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1
 
SUBMISSION
 
TO
 
TGA
 
TRANSPARENCY
 
REVIEW
 
PANEL
 
March
 
2011
 
Introduction
 
The
 
Mordi
 
Skeptics
 
in
 
the
 
Pub
 
are
 
a
 
local
 
group
 
of 
 
around
 
82
 
consumers
 
who
 
enjoy
 
exploring
 
things
 
underpinned
 
by
 
science,
 
evidence
 
and
 
reason
 
in
 
a
 
social
 
setting.
 
We
 
meet
 
monthly
 
at
 
the
 
Mordialloc
 
Sporting
 
Club,
 
south
 
of 
 
Melbourne.
 
We
 
discuss
 
anything
 
science
based
 
and
 
any
 
aspect
 
of 
 
society
 
that
 
is
 
being
 
undermined
 
by
 
nonsense
 
but
 
should
 
be
 
illuminated
 
by
 
evidence.
1
 
We
 
have
 
loose
 
links
 
to
 
the
 
Victorian
 
Skeptics
 
and
 
the
 
Australian
 
Skeptics
 
through
 
some
 
common
 
membership,
 
but
 
we
 
are
 
not
 
part
 
of 
 
their
 
formal
 
organisation
 
structures.
 
Some
 
of 
 
our
 
members
 
attended
 
the
 
consultative
 
meeting
 
with
 
the
 
Transparency
 
Review
 
Panel
 
in
 
Melbourne
 
on
 
Tuesday
 
1
 
March
 
2011.
 
They
 
reported
 
on
 
this
 
meeting
 
to
 
a
 
subsequent
 
meeting
 
of 
 
the
 
Mordi
 
Skeptics
 
in
 
the
 
Pub,
 
where
 
they
 
were
 
authorised
 
to
 
prepare
 
and
 
lodge
 
this
 
submission
 
to
 
the
 
Review
 
Panel
 
on
 
behalf 
 
of 
 
the
 
Mordi
 
Skeptics.
 
The
 
need
 
for
 
transparency
 
between
 
products
 
tested
 
for
 
efficacy
 
and
 
those
 
which
 
are
 
not
 
We
 
are
 
highly
 
critical
 
of 
 
the
 
lack
 
of 
 
clear
 
distinction
 
between
 
evidence
 
based
 
medicine
 
and
 
so
called
 
‘alternative
 
medicine’
 
or
 
quackery
 
.
 
To
 
elevate
 
quackery
 
to
 
the
 
same
 
level
 
as
 
evidence
 
based
 
medicine
 
is
 
not
 
only
 
a
 
lack
 
of 
 
transparency,
 
but
 
also
 
a
 
failure
 
of 
 
adequate
 
consumer
 
protection,
 
in
 
our
 
view.
 
Much
 
of 
 
so
called
 
‘alternative
 
medicine’
 
lacks
 
scientific
 
grounding
 
and
 
repeated
 
clinical
 
studies,
 
showing
 
a
 
lack
 
of 
 
evidence
 
of 
 
efficacy
 
beyond
 
that
 
of 
 
a
 
placebo.
 
We
 
are
 
most
 
concerned
 
that
 
whilst
 
so
called
 
‘alternative
 
medicine’
 
may
 
be
 
safe,
 
its
 
lack
 
of 
 
efficacy
 
could
 
result
 
in
 
serious
 
illness
 
or
 
death
 
when
 
used
 
as
 
a
 
substitute
 
for
 
evidence
based
 
medicine.
 
1
 
Our
 
web
 
site
 
is
 
at
 
http://www.meetup.com/Mordi
Skeptics
in
the
Pub/
 
 
2
 
As
 
a
 
graphic
 
example,
 
we
 
draw
 
the
 
Panel’s
 
attention
 
to
 
the
 
WA
 
Coroner’s
 
Report
 
in
 
relation
 
to
 
the
 
death
 
of 
 
Penelope
 
Dingle,
2
 
which
 
is
 
now
 
available
 
as
 
a
 
PDF
 
file
 
at:
 
http://bit.ly/dIFWiS
 
This
 
report
 
has
 
taken
 
a
 
long
 
time
 
to
 
emerge
 
 
Ms.
 
Dingle
 
died
 
in
 
2005.
 
It
 
makes
 
distressing
 
and
 
depressing
 
reading.
 
Homeopathy
 
played
 
a
 
big
 
part
 
in
 
the
 
painful
 
slow
 
death
 
of 
 
Ms.
 
Dingle
 
from
 
what
 
should
 
have
 
been
 
a
 
survivable
 
rectal
 
cancer.
 
The
 
Coroner
 
found
 
in
 
this
 
case:
 
“In
 
her 
 
decision
making
 
the
 
deceased 
 
placed 
 
great 
 
reliance
 
on
 
Mrs
 
Scrayen
 
who
 
represented 
 
to
 
her 
 
that 
 
she
 
could 
 
treat 
 
cancer 
 
by 
 
homeopathy.
 
While
 
I
 
accept 
 
the
 
evidence
 
of 
 
Sylvia
 
Neubacher 
 
to
 
the
 
effect 
 
that 
 
making
 
such
 
a
 
representation
 
went 
 
beyond 
 
the
 
Australian
 
Homeopathic
 
Association
 
Code
 
of 
 
Conduct 
 
and 
 
that 
 
the
 
Association
 
has
 
attempted 
 
to
 
provide
 
accountable
 
structures
 
to
 
ensure
 
that 
 
homeopathic
 
practitioners
 
are
 
qualified 
 
and 
 
have
 
medical 
 
and 
 
professional 
 
standards
 
which
 
would 
 
provide
 
a
 
safeguard 
 
to
 
consumers,
 
I
 
have
 
serious
 
reservations
 
about 
 
any 
 
efforts
 
to
 
register 
 
or 
 
otherwise
 
legitimise
 
homeopathy 
 
or 
 
other 
 
similar 
 
alternative
 
forms
 
of 
 
medicine”.
 
(our
 
emphasis)
 
The
 
Coroner
 
recommended
 
as
 
follows:
 
Recommendation
 
No.
 
1
 
“I
 
recommend 
 
that 
 
the
 
Commonwealth
 
and 
 
State
 
Departments
 
of 
 
Health
 
review 
 
the
 
legislative
 
framework 
 
relating
 
to
 
complementary 
 
and 
 
alternative
 
medicine
 
practitioners
 
and 
 
practices
 
with
 
a
 
view 
 
to
 
ensuring
 
that 
 
there
 
are
 
no
 
mixed 
 
messages
 
provided 
 
to
 
vulnerable
 
patients
 
and 
 
that 
 
science
 
based 
 
medicine
 
and 
 
alternative
 
medicine
 
are
 
treated 
 
differently”.
 
(our
 
emphasis)
 
We
 
therefore
 
request
 
that
 
the
 
Review
 
Panel
 
do
 
all
 
that
 
it
 
can
 
to
 
implement
 
this
 
recommendation
 
in
 
its
 
report.
 
Post
modernist
 
equivalence
 
We
 
are
 
critical
 
of 
 
the
 
post
modernist
 
fashion
 
of 
 
equating
 
all
 
providers
 
or
 
purported
 
providers
 
of 
 
health
related
 
services
 
by
 
calling
 
them
 
‘health
 
professionals’.
 
This
 
highly
 
misleading
 
term
 
could
 
be
 
interpreted
 
as
 
equally
 
applying
 
to
 
a
 
leading
 
brain
 
surgeon,
 
a
 
homeopath
 
or
 
an
 
aromatherapist.
 
We
 
suggest
 
that
 
the
 
using
 
the
 
separate
 
terms
 
‘qualified
 
medical
 
practitioner’
 
and
 
‘alternative
 
health
 
service
 
provider’
 
would
 
be
 
more
 
transparent.
 
Lack
 
of 
 
transparency
 
at
 
point
 
of 
 
sale
 
Having
 
regard
 
to
 
the
 
Review
 
Panel’s
 
specific
 
terms
 
of 
 
reference,
 
our
 
main
 
concerns
 
are
 
about
 
the
 
lack
 
of 
 
transparency
 
of 
 
the
 
TGA’s
 
role
 
at
 
the
 
point
 
of 
 
sale
 
of 
 
therapeutic
 
goods
 
i.e.
 
2
 
We
 
note
 
that
 
some
 
members
 
of 
 
the
 
Review
 
Panel
 
were
 
aware
 
of 
 
this
 
case
 
at
 
the
 
consultative
 
meeting.
 
 
3
 
in
 
the
 
pharmacy.
 
We
 
are
 
most
 
concerned
 
that
 
many
 
consumers
 
are
 
not
 
aware
 
of 
 
the
 
TGA’s
 
role
 
in
 
regulating
 
therapeutic
 
goods
 
and
 
the
 
misconceptions
 
this
 
is
 
likely
 
to
 
cause
 
amongst
 
consumers.
 
In
 
particular,
 
we
 
strongly
 
doubt
 
that
 
many
 
consumers
 
are
 
aware
 
of 
 
the
 
difference
 
between
 
products
 
registered
 
or
 
listed
 
on
 
the
 
Australian
 
Register
 
of 
 
Therapeutic
 
Goods
 
(ARTG).
 
Few
 
consumers
 
would
 
be
 
aware
 
that
 
listed
 
products
 
are
 
not
 
tested
 
or
 
approved
 
by
 
the
 
TGA
 
for
 
efficacy.
 
Listed
 
products
 
are
 
sold:
 
 
in
 
a
 
pharmacy,
 
often
 
by
 
an
 
authoritative
looking
 
person
 
wearing
 
a
 
white
 
laboratory
 
coat
 
with
 
a
 
name
 
tag
 
saying
 
‘pharmacist’;
 
 
in
 
packaging
 
which
 
is
 
often
 
not
 
readily
 
distinguishable
 
from
 
registered
 
products;
 
and
 
 
sometimes
 
even
 
advertised
 
and/or
 
displayed
 
on
 
the
 
prescription
 
counter
 
of 
 
the
 
pharmacy.
 
These
 
factors
 
could
 
easily
 
mislead
 
consumers
 
into
 
thinking
 
that
 
the
 
product
 
in
 
question
 
has
 
an
 
implied
 
endorsement
 
by
 
the
 
relevant
 
government
 
authority
 
and/or
 
the
 
pharmacological
 
profession.
 
As
 
a
 
real
 
example
 
of 
 
this
 
confusion,
 
one
 
of 
 
our
 
members
 
brought
 
along
 
to
 
the
 
meeting
 
with
 
the
 
Review
 
Panel
 
a
 
therapeutic
 
goods
 
product
 
that
 
he
 
had
 
recently
 
purchased
 
from
 
his
 
local
 
pharmacy.
 
The
 
packaging
 
of 
 
this
 
product
 
looked
 
indistinguishable
 
in
 
appearance
 
from
 
a
 
prescription
 
medicine,
 
which
 
was
 
obviously
 
a
 
marketing
 
ploy.
 
None
 
of 
 
us
 
could
 
find
 
any
 
information
 
on
 
the
 
packet
 
as
 
to
 
whether
 
it
 
was
 
a
 
TGA
 
registered
 
or
 
listed
 
product.
 
Even
 
one
 
of 
 
the
 
panel
 
members
 
couldn’t
 
find
 
this
 
information
 
either,
 
until
 
she
 
took
 
it
 
to
 
another
 
panel
 
member
 
or
 
TGA
 
officer
 
who
 
found
 
the
 
code
 
for
 
a
 
listed
 
product
 
on
 
one
 
side
 
of 
 
the
 
packet
 
in
 
small
 
print.
 
The
 
orientation
 
was
 
such
 
as
 
to
 
require
 
the
 
box
 
to
 
be
 
turned
 
sideways
 
to
 
read
 
the
 
‘AUST
L’
 
marking.
 
This
 
is
 
hardly
 
a
 
good
 
example
 
of 
 
transparency.
 
Consumers
 
have
 
a
 
right
 
to
 
be
 
unequivocally
 
informed
 
that
 
listed
 
therapeutic
 
goods
 
have
 
not
 
been
 
tested
 
or
 
approved
 
by
 
the
 
TGA
 
for
 
efficacy.
 
Likewise,
 
the
 
‘AUST
L’
 
marking
 
would
 
be
 
more
 
meaningful
 
if 
 
‘No
 
data
 
available
 
regarding
 
efficacy’
 
were
 
added
 
by
 
way
 
of 
 
explanation.
 
Lack
 
of 
 
transparency
 
of 
 
TGA
 
web
 
site
 
We
 
have
 
had
 
difficulty
 
in
 
locating
 
information
 
on
 
the
 
TGA
 
web
 
site.
 
In
 
comparison
 
with
 
other
 
government
 
web
 
sites,
 
the
 
TGA
 
site
 
is
 
not
 
easy
 
to
 
navigate.
 
We
 
therefore
 
suggest
 
that
 
it
 
may
 
be
 
time
 
for
 
an
 
independent
 
review
 
of 
 
this
 
web
 
site,
 
from
 
both
 
a
 
consumer
 
and
 
a
 
medical
 
practitioner
 
perspective.
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->