Calling all Supporters of Homeopathy!
There is an urgent need to help in a letter writing campaign to the California Supreme Court regarding a case against Green Pharma, a homeopathic combination remedy manufacturer.
Letters can come from anyone, not just residents of California. Please forward this information to anyone who may be impacted, including clients.
A short explanation…
This court case was heard and won, but the disappointed plaintiff appealed the ruling. Contested twists occurred in the Appeal Court proceedings and then Green Pharma lost. The worst of it is that the court accepted prima facie evidence that concluded homeopathy, by the standards of pharmacology, was not capable of effect and thus placebo. As such, the claim of their SnoreStop product effect by Green Pharma is false advertising. The case essentially put homeopathy, in general, on trial.
In the Appeal Court, the judge dismissed evidence presented by Green Pharma:
- a peer reviewed placebo controlled clinical trial that the judge discounted arguing the design of the trial as insufficient,
- a witness who was considered an advocate versus a scientist with objectivity.
The only remaining evidence was the testimony of a pharmacist with no knowledge of homeopathic products, professing that the level of dilution in homeopathic medicine was beyond a point that could have any effect. The judge overruled the lower court decision on that remaining prima facie evidence.
In legal practice the term prima facie generally is used to describe two things:
- the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case),
- or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.
The concern and question is: If this decision is not reviewed and overturned, could the accepted prima facie evidence impact future cases concerning homeopathic products? And by extension, could the establishment of such standard put in jeopardy any intervention that did not meet the criteria of the pharmaceutical paradigm?
Some of our consulted legal counsel feel the appellate court decision is bad for the company but also bad for all homeopathic manufacturers. Other counsel feels the case is very limited in further application in that the judge made his decision with limited evidence that had been presented in this specific case.
NASH and The American Association of Pharmacists (AAHP) had attorneys carefully review this case. NASH and AAHP encourages Green Pharma’s efforts to overturn the recent adverse California Appellate Court decision. To do so, Green Pharma must get the California Supreme Court to hear the case.
Green Pharma has now petitioned the Supreme Court of California to review the case on several points (see the attached petition). As the Supreme Court only hears a very small percentage of petitioned cases, choosing only those that will affect many people, we need to get their attention on that issue. We need to let the Supreme Court know our concern about the Appeal Court using limited testimony of a specialist in the science of allopathic drugs having no research education or experience with homeopathic products, to reach a decision or in any way establish legitimacy of the testimony in future cases. We, being practitioners and users of homeopathy, need to let the court know that we value access and use of homeopathic medicine and have concerns about this case affect for millions of people. The only way to do this is to inundate them with letters so they see the significance of the Green Pharma case.
Your letter, known as an Amicus Curiae Letter, is how we can inform the court of our concern about the negative impact this Appeal Court ruling might have on our access and ability to use homeopathy. If mutually agreed, AAHP would assist Green Pharma with an Amicus Brief that is submitted after the Supreme Court elects to make the review.
Letters must be received by the Supreme Court before December 15.
Note the downloads in the right hand side bar.
- Summary of the California Supreme Court Filed Petition
- California Supreme Court Filed Petition
- Directions and Template for your Amicus Letter - this template must be used to assure the necessary information is included in your letter.
- Proof of Service
You will need to make 3 copies of the letter.
Mail the Original and Proof of Service to:
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister St
San Francisco, CA 94102
Mail two copies to the attorneys at the addresses on the Proof of Service Letter.
Let us know if you intend to write a letter or if you have any comments.
For more information or if you have a specific question, please email Anna Cox.
