How Can Homeopathy Be Both a Useless Placebo and Dangerous at the Same Time?

[Created4]

The FDA Claims Homeopathic Remedies Need Regulation which would Effectively Outlaw Them

The FDA wrapped up a two-day hearing this week on whether or not homeopathic remedies should be regulated like drugs. Listening to critics of homeopathy try to justify why they don’t think the American public should have free access to homeopathic remedies leaves one wondering just what the real motivation is behind these criticisms.

The two dominant criticisms made against homeopathic remedies are antithetical to each other. Critics complain that due to a lack of regulation homeopathic remedies are dangerous, but then they turn around and say that homeopathic remedies are simply useless sugar pills with no therapeutic effect whatsoever, and no better than a placebo.

Both cannot be true.

Is this the new standard of scientific scrutiny that federal agencies are using to supposedly protect the public?

Are Homeopathic Remedies Dangerous?

The mainstream media is doing its best to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s desire to paint homeopathy products in a bad light, and doing a very poor job of it. According to the mainstream media, which is obviously being fed statistics from the pharmaceutical industry and the federal government and doing no independent investigations of their own, what is the basis for claiming that homeopathic remedies are “dangerous”?

Here is the official Associated Press version:

A top federal drug regulator says that increased safety problems with homeopathic remedies contributed to the government’s decision to revisit its oversight of the products at a public hearing this week.

In perhaps the most serious case, in 2009 the FDA ordered the maker of Zicam to stop marketing three products that contained zinc gluconate. The agency linked those products to 130 reports from consumers who said they lost their sense of smell.

That was the “most serious case” of “increased safety problems” with homeopathic remedies which has prompted an FDA review. 130 people claimed they lost their sense of smell, a claim that the manufacturer says was actually never proven.

Contrast this to consumer reports of adverse effects from FDA approved drugs.

Over 1 million FDA-approved drug side effects are reported each year now, including serious side effects such as death (over 100,000 deaths a year). It is admitted that these voluntary reports do not encompass the totality of all prescription drug side effects.

Drugwatch.com, which is hosted by a Washington D.C. law firm, states:

Each year, about 4.5 million Americans visit their doctor’s office or the emergency room because of adverse prescription drug side effects. A startling 2 million other patients who are already hospitalized suffer the ill effects of prescription medications annually.

Clearly safety of non-FDA-approved homeopathic remedies is not the issue here, especially as compared to FDA-approved drug side effects.

FDA approved drugs are dangerous and deadly. Homeopathic remedies are not.

The FDA is clearly not concerned about homeopathic remedies because they are a danger to the public. They are a danger to their monopoly on drugs, and so they clearly want to either eliminate the competition, or get in on the action and take over the market.

Read the Full Story.

[specsaregood]

The two dominant criticisms made against homeopathic remedies are antithetical to each other. Critics complain that due to a lack of regulation homeopathic remedies are dangerous, but then they turn around and say that homeopathic remedies are simply useless sugar pills with no therapeutic effect whatsoever, and no better than a placebo.

Both cannot be true.

Uhm, they can both most certainly be true if one is capable of critical thinking skills.

[Ronin Truth]

The argument would probably go something like, if you are relying on homeopathy for your treatment and/or cure you probably aren't getting the meds that you need and would be better for you.

BTW, not my argument.

[Created4]

The argument would probably go something like, if you are relying on homeopathy for your treatment and/or cure you probably aren't getting the meds that you need and would be better for you.

Yes, that is the REAL argument, and it is covered in the full article:

What is the Real Reason the FDA Wants to Eliminate Homeopathic Remedies?

The real reason why the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry want to regulate and eliminate homeopathic remedies is no secret, and we do not even need to speculate about it. They come right out and tell us the reason:

Still, perhaps the greatest harm caused by homeopathy is not necessarily caused by the products themselves—which, when properly prepared, rarely contain anything other than water and inactive ingredients such as sugars and binding agents—but by the fact that people often rely on homeopathic products to the exclusion of proven scientific remedies.

Admittedly, homeopathic remedies are not dangerous. “Proven scientific remedies” of course means “FDA-approved” drugs.

Homeopathic remedies present a threat to the marketing of dangerous drugs (not people), as homeopathic product sales in the U.S. have increased 16% over the past 5 years to $6.4 billion annually, with projections to reach $7.5 billion by 2017. If a homeopathic remedy is marketed for a specific illness where a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug already exists, the FDA wants you to choose the drug instead.

But if too many people start making the “wrong choice,” they want to take away your freedom to choose.

If the FDA does decide to regulate homeopathic remedies, then only those remedies approved by them will be allowed to be sold, classifying them as drugs. There are only a handful of companies in the United States that the FDA allows to have drugs approved. Homeopathic remedies, and their booming popularity, would become part of Big Pharma.

[juleswin]

Yep, they say it gives people false hope. As long as those people are adults, that's ok with me. Prayer also gives people false hope but I doubt the government will ban it anytime soon.

[Created4]

Prayer also gives people false hope but I doubt the government will ban it anytime soon.

Prayer has been banned by the government in many places, including public schools.

[PaulConventionWV]

Uhm, they can both most certainly be true if one is capable of critical thinking skills.

No effect vs. harmful effect

How do you reconcile those two?

[specsaregood]

No effect vs. harmful effect

How do you reconcile those two?

I wouldn't try since that isn't the claim that was made. It said:

The two dominant criticisms made against homeopathic remedies are antithetical to each other. Critics complain that due to a lack of regulation homeopathic remedies are dangerous, but then they turn around and say that homeopathic remedies are simply useless sugar pills with no therapeutic effect whatsoever, and no better than a placebo.

Better brush up on your reading skills.

[Created4]

No effect vs. harmful effect

How do you reconcile those two?

He prefers ad hominem attacks. I guess that is his definition of "critical thinking."

[presence]

Why does the government have any say in what I choose to purchase, grow, manufacture, or consume? Did I wake up in North Korea?

[Created4]

Why does the government have any say in what I choose to purchase, grow, manufacture, or consume? Did I wake up in North Korea?

The FDA operates under the assumed principle that it needs to protect you from making poor choices. They believe that they own your health, and all "healthcare" products (which they only define as pharmaceutical products).

They put up with non-patent-able natural remedies as long as they can convince the public they are ineffective. As soon as something becomes popular, in this case homeopathy which is booming today, especially outside the U.S., they will try to either squash it, or take it over so they can profit from it (via regulation).

[PaulConventionWV]

I wouldn't try since that isn't the claim that was made. It said:

Better brush up on your reading skills.

Umm...

The two dominant criticisms made against homeopathic remedies are antithetical to each other. Critics complain that due to a lack of regulation homeopathic remedies are dangerous, but then they turn around and say that homeopathic remedies are simply useless sugar pills with no therapeutic effect whatsoever, and no better than a placebo.

Yes, you were insult--I mean--saying?

[PaulConventionWV]

He prefers ad hominem attacks. I guess that is his definition of "critical thinking."

I noticed.

[erowe1]

If somebody needs real medicine and you make them believe they're taking real medicine, when they're actually just taking a useless placebo, that would be pretty dangerous.

[angelatc]

The argument would probably go something like, if you are relying on homeopathy for your treatment and/or cure you probably aren't getting the meds that you need and would be better for you.

BTW, not my argument.

Not my argument either, but colloidal silver:

[specsaregood]

Umm..

Yes, you were insult--I mean--saying?

Ok, let me help you out here. They are talking about 2 different things that are unrelated and certainly are not mutually specific.

1.

Critics complain that due to a lack of regulation homeopathic remedies are dangerous.

This can be true. With this comment they are discussing the state of the market for homeopathy products. If there is no regulation, people may not know what is in the product -- similar to what came out about the supplement market recently where the ingredients were not even accurate. And even if the ingredients are accurate there could be zero tests or studies done on the safety of the ingredients or combination of ingredients or interactions with other products. ie: dangerous

2.

say that homeopathic remedies are simply useless sugar pills with no therapeutic effect whatsoever, and no better than a placebo.

With this comment it seems clear to me that they are discussing the medical practice of homeopathy and its products. This quote assumes that the product is genuine and safe (they are giving homeopathy products the benefit of the doubt here). And saying ok, even if they don't kill you that they wont do you any good anyways. ie: useless

And that is even ignoring the other option others have already pointed out about people taking homeopathy choosing to ignore other regulated/tested/proven drugs for their illnesses.

Now I don't care for the FDA and would be happy if it was closed down or at least limited to its original intent. And I don't give a crap about homeopathy or any of that. But it seems pretty clear to me that those 2 statements are not mutually exclusive.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok, let me help you out here. They are talking about 2 different things that are unrelated and certainly are not mutually specific.

1.

This can be true. With this comment they are discussing the state of the market for homeopathy products. If there is no regulation, people may not know what is in the product -- similar to what came out about the supplement market recently where the ingredients were not even accurate. And even if the ingredients are accurate there could be zero tests or studies done on the safety of the ingredients or combination of ingredients or interactions with other products. ie: dangerous

Thanks for outing yourself as a statist who thinks only the government can ensure quality in the market.

2.

With this comment it seems clear to me that they are discussing the medical practice of homeopathy and its products. This quote assumes that the product is genuine and safe (they are giving homeopathy products the benefit of the doubt here). And saying ok, even if they don't kill you that they wont do you any good anyways. ie: useless

See how many linguistic hoops you had to jump through there to "explain" that to me? I think it's pretty obvious what they meant.

And that is even ignoring the other option others have already pointed out about people taking homeopathy choosing to ignore other regulated/tested/proven drugs for their illnesses.

They made that choice, not the homeopathic medicine. They did it to themselves.

Now I don't care for the FDA and would be happy if it was closed down or at least limited to its original intent. And I don't give a crap about homeopathy or any of that. But it seems pretty clear to me that those 2 statements are not mutually exclusive.

"Original intent"???

Do you really think there was ever any good intent behind the creation of the FDA?

[specsaregood]

Thanks for outing yourself as a statist who thinks only the government can ensure quality in the market.

Thanks! Being called a statist on this site is generally a compliment. Of course you'll have a problem pointing out where I said only the government can ensure quality. Fact is, with the FDA in place the public is led to believe that things that are for sale are tested/approved/effective and generally safe. Get rid of that false security and I agree that more private regulators would show up and do a better job. eg: gmo foods.

See how many linguistic hoops you had to jump through there to "explain" that to me? I think it's pretty obvious what they meant.

Not any really, it seemed pretty obvious to me; but I'm not blinded by any preconceived beliefs on the subject.

"Original intent"???
Do you really think there was ever any good intent behind the creation of the FDA?

I guess you missed where I said I don't care for the FDA and would be happy if it closed down -- once again, your reading skills seem to be questionable. Or maybe you are one of those extremists that just like to bitch and moan and if you cant get everything your way then you want nothing to change. I happen to like Randal's proposal to eliminate the efficacy mandate from the FDA and have it return to its original mandate of only safety. I think that is a reasonable goal and related to the topic: proving safety should be a fairly easy hurdle for homeopathy products to pass.

[Created4]

If somebody needs real medicine and you make them believe they're taking real medicine, when they're actually just taking a useless placebo, that would be pretty dangerous.

Yes, by all means, that is the proper function of government, to save people from their ignorance and only comply with what government decides is best (if you live in N. Korea for example.)

This is all about money, and not therapeutics.

Worldwide Homeopathy is Growing Rapidly Outside of the U.S.

Homeopathy was one of the most common medical practices in the United States in the 1800s. In 1892, homeopaths in the United Stated controlled about 110 hospitals, 145 dispensaries, 62 orphan asylums and old peoples homes, over 30 nursing homes and sanitaria and 16 insane asylums. However, the pharmaceutical industry did everything it could to stomp out homeopathy, and it is not as widespread in the U.S. today as it once was. (See: American Medical Revolutions: How the AMA Took Over America.)

Worldwide, homeopathy is the second largest system of health care used behind conventional pharmaceutical-based medicine. Dana Ullman, one of America’s leading authorities on homeopathy, writes:

According to recent surveys in France, an astounding 40% of the French public have used homeopathic medicines, and 39% of French physicians have prescribed them. At least six French medical schools offer courses leading to a degree in homeopathy, and homeopathy is taught in all pharmacy schools and in four veterinary schools. In a prominent French news magazine President Francois Mitterand and six medical school deans called for more research on homeopathy.

According to an article in the British Medical Journal, 42% of British physicians surveyed refer patients to homeopathic physicians. Another survey of British physicians discovered that 80% of recent graduates wanted training in either homeopathy, acupuncture, or hypnosis.

Homeopathic medicine is very popular in Germany as well. One respected author estimated that 20% of German physicians use homeopathic medicines occasionally. At present, the most popular hay fever remedy in Germany is a homeopathic medicine, and other homeopathic medicines for the common cold, sore throats, and circulatory problems are in the top ten of their respective categories.

To further aid the growth of homeopathy, the late President of Germany, Karl Karstens, and his wife, Dr. Veronica Carstens, who is a medical doctor and a homeopathic physician, recently started a homeopathic research foundation. Numerous new research efforts in Germany and throughout Europe have begun in the past couple of years.

Despite homeopathy’s impressive popularity in Europe, it is even more popular in India. Presently, there are over 100,000 homeopathic doctors and over 100 four- and five-year homeopathic medical colleges in this country. Homeopathy has achieved such respect that in 1987 the government established homeopathic drug detox clinics in six different police stations in New Delhi. A recent conference in India which described impressive results in the homeopathic treatment of drug addiction received accolades from India’s Minister of Health and Family Welfare, the Finance Minister, and the Chief Justice. In addition to the Indian government’s support of homeopathic drug detox clinics, they have also supported various research projects and homeopathic hospitals and clinics.

The FDA is clearly not concerned about homeopathic remedies because they are a danger to the public. They are a danger to their monopoly on drugs, due to their growing popularity, and so they clearly want to either eliminate the competition, or get in on the action and take over the market.

- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/how...the-same-time/

[Created4]

If somebody needs real medicine and you make them believe they're taking real medicine, when they're actually just taking a useless placebo, that would be pretty dangerous.

And if you want to talk about "dangerous", here you go:



Over 1 million FDA-approved drug side effects are reported each year now, including serious side effects such as death (over 100,000 deaths a year). It is admitted that these voluntary reports do not encompass the totality of all prescription drug side effects.

Drugwatch.com, which is hosted by a Washington D.C. law firm, states:

Each year, about 4.5 million Americans visit their doctor’s office or the emergency room because of adverse prescription drug side effects. A startling 2 million other patients who are already hospitalized suffer the ill effects of prescription medications annually.

Clearly safety of non-FDA-approved homeopathic remedies is not the issue here, especially as compared to FDA-approved drug side effects.

FDA approved drugs are dangerous and deadly. Homeopathic remedies are not.

[Working Poor]

Well I am going to stock up on cell salts and get the large size while I still can.

[juleswin]

If somebody needs real medicine and you make them believe they're taking real medicine, when they're actually just taking a useless placebo, that would be pretty dangerous.

You do know there is something called the placebo effect and it is real. People actually take non medicine and they feel the effect of the medicine they are told they were taking. Why is it any of your business to deprive these innocent folks of this effect? As long as the people taking it are not children or mentally challenged.

[Created4]

You do know there is something called the placebo effect and it is real. People actually take non medicine and they feel the effect of the medicine they are told they were taking. Why is it any of your business to deprive these innocent folks of this effect? As long as the people taking it are not children or mentally challenged.

Yes, by all means please deprive children and "mentally challenged" from placebo effects of harmless natural remedies. Let them take the FDA approved drugs for the mentally challenged:

FACT: Antidepressant drugs no better than placebos



The CBS news program “60 Minutes” has produced a story featuring Dr. Irving Kirsch’s research on placebos and antidepressant drugs. To anyone who believes that popular antidepressant drugs prescribed for depression have solid scientific evidence based on sound research, you owe it to yourself to invest 14 minutes of your time to watch this expose featuring interviews with Dr. Irving Kirsch, the associate director of the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Michael Thase, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (a consultant to many of the drug companies and presenting the opposing view), Dr. Walter Brown, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University’s Medical School, Dr. Tom Laughren, director of the FDA’s division of psychiatry products (defending the drugs), and Dr. Tim Kendall, a practicing psychiatrist and co-director of a commission that advises the National Health Service in Great Britain.

What has dramatically changed in this discussion regarding whether or not antidepressant drugs are better than placebos or not, is that Dr. Kirsch has gone beyond studying the published research on this subject, and has now secured all the unpublished research done on these antidepressants through the Freedom of Information Act, and the results are even more shocking. The cat is out of the bag, to use the old cliche, and even those still defending the drugs are no longer denying the placebo effects at all, as this incredible report will show.

EDIT: Looks like CBS does not allow embedding. Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zihdr36WVi4

[PaulConventionWV]

Thanks! Being called a statist on this site is generally a compliment. Of course you'll have a problem pointing out where I said only the government can ensure quality. Fact is, with the FDA in place the public is led to believe that things that are for sale are tested/approved/effective and generally safe. Get rid of that false security and I agree that more private regulators would show up and do a better job. eg: gmo foods.

The FDA does far more than any private regulatory bodies would impose on the market, and it's not good. It's not just that private regulatory bodies would do a better job; it's that the FDA is restricting the market and making it impossible for things like homeopathy to make any headway. That's just one example of the hindrances to the marketplace that the FDA offers, and its bad far outweighs its good because that's the way it was designed.

Not any really, it seemed pretty obvious to me; but I'm not blinded by any preconceived beliefs on the subject.

No preconceptions necessary. You said that wasn't the argument being put forth when the article clearly states that the two ideas are antithetical to each other, so yes, that most certainly is the argument being put forth. The whole reason for examining the article is to see what was said, and you mince words when the article later answers your very objection by saying the two things are antithetical. They cannot be both because no effect =/= harmful effects. Distracting patients from better medicine doesn't count as a harmful effect.

I guess you missed where I said I don't care for the FDA and would be happy if it closed down -- once again, your reading skills seem to be questionable. Or maybe you are one of those extremists that just like to bitch and moan and if you cant get everything your way then you want nothing to change. I happen to like Randal's proposal to eliminate the efficacy mandate from the FDA and have it return to its original mandate of only safety. I think that is a reasonable goal and related to the topic: proving safety should be a fairly easy hurdle for homeopathy products to pass.

When you say "original intent", you are implying that it was intended for a better purpose than what it's turned into, and that's what I was objecting to. We can return to whatever mandate you like, but the intent behind those mandates is still not good intent. The whole system of "mandates" needs to be torn asunder. If anything, I think it's you who has the communication problems by assuming that my reading is the problem and thereby masking your own faulty wording. Insulting me only serves to cover up your own shortcomings.

[CPUd]

[FindLiberty]

Placebo-tab 500's are apparently not quite as effective as the larger Placebo-tab 1000 mg tablets in treating common wide-spectrum psychosomatic illnesses.

[erowe1]

You do know there is something called the placebo effect and it is real.

I used the word in the quote you quoted. So yeah.

[Weston White]

No effect vs. harmful effect

How do you reconcile those two?

They same way that pro-vaxxers-technocrats posture that while vaccines, GMO foods, fluoridated water, etc., are perfectly healthy for consumption and are not carcinogenic, but that vitamin supplements are most definitely cancer causing.