About

Purpose of this blog: We intend pointing out, without fear or favour, unsubstantiated, erroneous or otherwise misleading claims being made for medicines and related products available in the South African market. We intend using sound scientific principles and logical arguments in order to provide some tools and evidence for readers to make up their own minds whether the claims made for a product are justified or not. Although we are trained in the use of conventional (prescription) medicines, we do not take a stance either for or against complementary medicines,  we simply expect the following for all medicines:

• That consumers can be sure that what is on the label is what is contained in the product
• That their safety has been investigated and established
• That their bioavailability has been established where this is possible
• That the correct dose is being used and verified using an evidence-based approach
• That the claims are true and established by sound evidence*.

*Sound evidence:  Good scientific or sound assessment has been used. Examples of invalid basis for claims being made: Cherry picking of published results – claiming that a benefit was seen when the author’s own conclusion is that “more studies are required to verify the results”, or that “the evidence does not support using the product for x condition”.

Russel Norton, an attorney specialising in intellectual property at attorneys Spoor and Fisher: "the defence against an action of defamation would be that the statement is true and for the public benefit, or that it is fair comment on a matter of public interest".

We express honestly-held opinions, without malice, on matters of public interest and based on facts that are true. The facts and/or rationale for our assertions accompany our postings. In a recent Constitutional Court ruling, it was held that “criticism was protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced so long as it expresses an honestly-held opinion, without malice, on a matter of public interest on facts that were true.” See: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Paper-w ins-main-McBride-appeal-20110408

Our opinions are without malice, not extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated nor prejudiced but based on supporting evidence for our assertions – alternatively, demonstrating a lack of evidence for claims being made.

We subscribe to the practice of evidence-based medicine:
The most quoted definition of evidence-based medicine is that of David Sackett (BMJ 1996): "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of the individual patient. It means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research."
See http://www.bmj.com/content/312 /7023/71.full

We believe that the Regulation of (all) medicines in South Africa is no longer based solely on the quality, safety and therapeutic efficacy as mandated by the Medicines Act. The present Chairperson of the Medicines Control Council (MCC) was a non-executive director of Clicks until he resigned from that role in 2009. It is believed that although he declared his interest, he did not recuse himself from those meetings where products being sold by Clicks were discussed. This may have led to a serious precedent where other members of the MCC, who are also said to have various vested interests in the health products industry (including pharmaceutical products, natural products, laboratories, so-called complementary medicines, and consultants) do not recuse themselves from meetings.

Authors:
Dr Harris Steinman, medical doctor, consumer activist and author of a number of evidence-based allergen reference books
Various guest authors and collaborators from time to time