"All our products are MHRA approved and are prescribed by GMC Registered Doctors or Advanced Nurse Practitioners, all of whom have 10 - 25 years experience in the NHS individually.
"We provide Vitamin Drips and Booster Shots to help improve a person's overall health and wellness. There are many articles available with more information on how gut health can affect the absorption of vitamins and nutrients due to various physical and mental stress factors"
"An example of another providers’ page with more detailed information than I currently have to hand is:
It just gets worse and worse.
"We are currently working very closely with Nutritionists to help develop and further research into the area of gut health and gut absorption of Vitamins and Nutrients.
Please let me know if you have any further questions"
I've replied as politely as I can.
It is for a different service, the "Elixir Clinic":
"The Elixir Clinic Limited is registered to provide the regulated activities of Diagnostic and screening procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. At the time of our inspection...
(I think this is probably at least partially because "When the service was started, the founders had intended to offer a private doctor service, but have been unable to retain a practitioner to date.").
"the services provided ... were out of CQC scope of registration and regulation. The service specialised in intravenous and intramuscular vitamin therapy intended to promote and sustain long term wellbeing. None of their services were provided to treat medical conditions."
These are not worth risking, in the pursuit of some nebulous concept of "wellness".
("What is excluded from... regulated activity?
Most alternative and complementary therapy...")
So it comes down to WHY you're doing it, not just what you're doing.
CQC tie themselves in knots to conclude that regulation isn't necessary:
"The products administered at the service were not supported by clinical evidence as they were not intended to treat disease or injury...
"The service did not carry out audits to assess the effectiveness of the treatment. Prior to their administration, client treatment choices were reviewed by a clinician to determine if the treatment would be suitable for them" - based on "pursuit of wellness", I guess?
Until now I considered parenteral therapies to be entirely "medical", with known risks, which we expose patients to only where we're convinced that there's a specific treatment benefit intended.
Otherwise, what's the point?
Despite this, you then need doctors to prescribe the IV/IM therapies.
Normally our society lets consenting adults do pretty much anything they want to eachother, as long as they consent. There are very few exceptions.
Regulated medical activities are one such exception,
However, specific risky interventions, as treatment for specific conditions, have been reserved as requiring the involvement of a doctor.
So, if @getadrip is really only providing benign health and wellness interventions, why would doctors need to be involved at all?
Otherwise how on earth are these doctors deciding which therapies are suitable?
@getadrip et al highlight an odd quirk in our current regulatory and medical ethical framework.
Namely, there are some specific interventions that are considered so specialist, or risky, that they legally need to involve a doctor, yet as long as...
I'd be intrigued to hear from doctors able to practice in this environment - how does one gain informed consent?
And from patients (customers?) - what are the IM/IVs for? "Wellness"?