Céline Masquelier worked for 18 months for a laboratory specializing in homeopathic products. A graduate in neuroscience, who worked for several pharmaceutical companies where she directed clinical trials, this thirty-year-old never really believed in the virtues of small white granules. This position, however, allowed him to closely observe the unsavory back kitchen of homeopathy. Today, it wishes to denounce the lightness of its regulatory framework, and is outraged that these products continue to benefit from the name “medicine” even though they “do not present any of the characteristics”. Interview.
L’Express: You are a specialist in the management of clinical trials. Why did a scientist like you accept a position with a manufacturer of homeopathic products?
Céline Masquelier: My hiring was linked to the diversification strategy of this industrialist, who wanted to develop a new line of medicines unrelated to homeopathy. I was supposed to set up trials for these treatments, but ultimately this was not possible. On this occasion, I discovered how easy it was for manufacturers of homeopathic products to obtain marketing authorizations. Their granules are presented as safe and effective, although they have never made the slightest demonstration of this. Recently, the name “vegetable steak” has been called into question for culinary preparations that do not contain animal proteins, so as not to mislead the consumer. In public health, on the other hand, it clearly doesn’t bother anyone that we continue to talk about “homeopathic medicines” when these products are in no way “medicines”.
Are the marketing authorization rules for homeopathy very different from the usual procedures?
They have nothing to do with each other! When a drug is developed, it is tested on cells and/or animals depending on its properties. If it meets regulatory requirements, it is authorized for clinical research, that is, trials on human subjects. This research is divided into three phases where the molecule evaluated must each time prove itself otherwise it will not move on to the next stage. Phase I determines whether the product is safe for humans. Phase II aims to confirm its tolerance and clinical activity. Phase III provides proof of the effectiveness of the product, by comparing it to a placebo or a standard treatment. It is only if this last result is positive that the medicine can obtain marketing authorization.
To market homeopathic products, manufacturers just have to present a file in which they show that there is a “traditional use”. Most often, it is simply a matter of referring to the writings of the inventor of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, who lived from 1755 to 1843. The marketing authorization for homeopathic products is therefore unfortunately not in effect. in no way linked to the demonstration of their effectiveness and is not scientific in any way.
So laboratories don’t carry out clinical trials?
It’s worse than that. As homeopathy is losing momentum, their manufacturers are carrying out clinical trials, in the hope of providing proof that their products work. There are also public research organizations, in France or abroad, which continue studies on homeopathy. But the results of all these protocols are systematically negative. Homeopathic products therefore remain on the market with the name “medicine” even though they have not provided scientific proof of their effectiveness!
When I see how many promising therapies struggle to find funding for clinical trials even though there is real interest for patients, I find this double standard a shame. Furthermore, in France, part of this research is done with our taxes, thanks to the research tax credit. It is time to stop the financial hemorrhage, and also to stop any abuse of patients who are included in these trials intended to try to prove the unprovable.
What should be the consequences, in your opinion?
The minimum would be to stop talking about medicine. In 2019, the delisting took place because the State realized that it was devoting a significant budget to supporting an ineffective solution. In 2024, we must go further. If homeopathic laboratories want a designation of “homeopathic medicine”, they should, as with all medicines, conduct phase I, II and III studies and obtain positive results allowing them to access the market with this designation. But such a prospect is of course completely unrealistic. Therefore, it would be better to maintain the current procedures, with specific registration files, but it would then be appropriate to speak of “homeopathic products” and not of medicines. The goal would of course be not to mislead patients.
Today, obtaining a marketing authorization, sale in pharmacies and the name of the drug can only be misleading, leading one to believe that the evidence of effectiveness is there. I also wonder if the pharmacists, who continue to sell these products, are aware that their effectiveness has never been demonstrated. Even if we are in belief and in a placebo effect, this does not justify sale in pharmacies. In the United States, moreover, manufacturers are obliged to mention that these products have not proven their effectiveness, under penalty of being sanctioned by the repression of fraud. When will this rule come to Europe?
We can easily imagine that these companies are experiencing great difficulties since the delisting of homeopathy…
If you look at the advertising campaigns of these laboratories, they are trying to ride the natural wave and promote the plants with which they work to make their products. Again, this fools the patient. You should know that strains can also be of animal, chemical, mineral or even human origin. For example guinea pig lungs, duck liver, or even arsenic. But worst of all is medorrhinum, prepared from purulent secretions of gonorrhea (a sexually transmitted infection) and which is indicated for buttock irritations, ear infections and asthma in infants. Fortunately the high dilutions mean that there is nothing left (or almost nothing as they suggest).
On the employee side, do you have to believe in homeopathy to work in this type of company?
Fortunately not, otherwise no one would work there! There are believers of course, and then there are those who stay there like I did for the opportunity. There is also a generational effect: younger people are more informed and less “believing” in the virtues of homeopathy, they want proof. Moreover, since my departure, I have heard of a succession of resignations, particularly from scientific profiles, and at the same time major recruitment difficulties for these profiles.
.