Guangzhou doctor Tan Qindong was arrested by police in Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia, for posting online that "Hongmao Medicinal Wine is poison." Inner Mongolia Hongmao Guoyao Co., Ltd. claimed that Tan's article caused over 1.4 million yuan in return losses and seriously damaged the company's reputation.

According to relevant inquiry records, due to the post, in Shenzhen, Hangzhou, and Changchun, a total of two pharmaceutical companies and seven citizens requested returns. The two companies are Jilin Province Haishan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Xiaoshan Baokang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., which returned 14,000 and 43,200 bottles respectively, involving payments of 827,000 yuan and 2,983,392 yuan; the seven citizens requested returns ranging from 1 to 12 bottles each.

Doubts about the ingredients and efficacy of Hongmao Medicinal Wine

Hongmao Medicinal Wine was approved as a national OTC drug (red label) in 1992. Another "health wine differentiated from medicinal wine," Jing Wine, can only wear the "blue hat" of health food. Which orbit a "quantum state" product lands on depends on a bit of luck, or "capability." Of course, neither affects sales; however, the advertising strategies are exactly opposite: OTC drugs often make themselves look like health foods, while health foods often pretend to be "drugs."

Not surprising. The marketing team behind Hongmao Medicinal Wine is backed by the so-called "Inner Mongolia 100,000 health product marketing army," which originally started with "health product" marketing.

But after the night of April 13, 2018, netizens across the country learned more about Hongmao Medicinal Wine. Specifically, they questioned its safety and efficacy.

After a large number of netizens and professionals intervened, the relevant content online has become quite detailed. The doubts focus on the following points:

First, efficacy. Relevant literature is scarce and limited to chemical analysis and mouse experiments, with no case reports or case summaries, let alone high-quality controlled studies, providing no practical guidance for clinical application.

Second, toxicity. Among the 67 medicinal ingredients, at least five have been publicly reported to be toxic, including the well-known He Shou Wu (Polygonum multiflorum), Fu Zi (aconite root), Bing Lang (areca nut), Ban Xia (pinellia), and Ku Xing Ren (bitter apricot seed). Among them, Ban Xia and Fu Zi, according to traditional Chinese medicine theory, belong to the "eighteen incompatibilities" of Chinese medicine.

Third, the People's Daily subsidiary Health Times published an article titled "2630 Illegal Advertisements Not Stopped: Who Is the Protective Charm of Hongmao Medicinal Wine?" Such a product has been suspected of long-term, large-scale, and repeated illegal advertising, not stopping for ten years, yet it has rapidly grown and profited immensely.

Fourth, labeling violations. For example, under contraindications, it states that children are prohibited, but in precautions, it says children must use under adult supervision. There are also contradictions in the method and time of administration.

Fifth, suspected use of endangered animal "leopard bone" as an ingredient — or suspected false advertising.

In fact, without all the above points, anyone can confidently say the following two sentences: The efficacy claimed by Hongmao Medicinal Wine has not been proven according to modern scientific requirements; the toxicity of Hongmao Medicinal Wine has not been disproven using methods accepted by modern science.

These doubts require serious responses from Hongmao Medicinal Wine. If Hongmao Medicinal Wine is "a toxic drug," then it is Hongmao Medicinal Wine that needs to clear its name.

But Hongmao Medicinal Wine has not done so. From historical records, almost every time a Chinese patent medicine or Chinese medicine injection encounters efficacy and toxicity incidents or doubts, the manufacturer involved has not attempted to prove its innocence through some kind of controlled experiment. Their logic for self-exoneration is almost identical: circular reasoning of legality and effectiveness.

Simply put, our products are already on the official list of legal health foods or drugs endorsed by the government. If there were safety or efficacy issues, why would regulatory authorities approve them?

Oh, consumers really don't know why you were "approved." Who knows?

Another logic is: we admit modern medicine is effective and scientific, but we are an exception; we don't need the proof you require; we are self-evident.

An extreme example of exceptionalism: two years ago, Wang Chengde, then a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and president of Beijing Shuntiande Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, said: "All drugs are toxic; the more toxic the drug, the better the drug."

According to this logic, a Chinese patent medicine being called "poison" should be a cause for joy.

When will food and drug regulatory capabilities be strengthened?

Tan Qindong was taken from his home three months ago and now faces prosecution.

The methods, scale, and necessity of law enforcement by the police in Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia, have undoubtedly caused huge controversy and even more speculation.

A widely circulated online article questioned, "A medicinal wine violates advertising laws 2,630 times and remains safe, but a doctor who posts a science article is arrested across provinces," reminding people of "Phenomenon Seventy-Two Changes": some people advertise illegally in broad daylight, while others arrest doctors in the dark of night.

The contrast is dramatic enough to explain why so many doctor "big Vs" from competing fields suddenly spoke out in unison as a community of shared destiny, and why so many unrelated netizens actively forwarded and left thousands of comments under the official microblogs of the manufacturer and departments, saying in unison: "Hongmao Medicinal Wine is poison."

This is a subtle convergence, a conscious collision, a peaceful protest. In an interconnected society, people from different classes, occupations, and genders are driven by obvious empathy and compassion to resonate.

This certainly exceeds the expectations of the instigator, and not everyone is happy about it. At this point, the public can only hope that through open and fair legal procedures, a convincing outcome will be delivered.

"Every drug has three parts poison." Even for therapeutic drugs, "toxicity" must be guarded against and constrained. Facing up to "toxicity" and caging the "toxicity" of drugs is the heart of a healer.

Beyond Tan Qindong's personal fate, I am more concerned about whether the regulatory capabilities in the food and drug field after institutional reform can undergo a similarly sweeping upgrade, and whether there can be a more effective sorting of the relevant regulatory targets. Without such changes, similar illegal advertisements will inevitably continue, and similar cross-province arrests may well recur.

This is a neglected topic, and because no one pays attention, it is almost hopeless. Due to various reasons, previous related discussions have either been one-sided statements or become fronts for chaotic attacks, with serious logic and specious sophistry intertwined, making effective discussion like a fool's talk. Even in some verifiable cases, such as damage from certain Chinese medicine injections and kidney damage from Longdan Xiegan Pills, local reviews are rare, and when they exist, they are the result of paying a huge price.

A more open, more rational platform that conforms to modern science and respects public welfare can minimize interference from factors outside science and conduct differentiated discussions on food and drug regulatory targets. Should the identity of some "drugs" be re-examined? Should the toxicity of some "drugs" be re-evaluated? This is not aimed at a specific company or product, nor is it only related to the interests of a specific doctor or patient. It concerns the legal rights of enterprise development and the framework in which they are protected, as well as the health and welfare of the general public. Neither can be ignored.

This article is compiled from: senior media person Song Jinbo, and the internet.

-END-