Should the FDA crack down on homeopathic “remedies”?

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/should-the-fda-crack-down-on-homeopathic-remedies/

"In the category of potentially dangerous complementary or alternative medicine, I can think of few products worse than ones claimed to relieve asthma, yet don’t actually contain any medicine. Yet these products exist and are widely sold. Just over a year ago I described what might be the most irresponsible homeopathic treatment ever: A homeopathic asthma spray. If there was ever a complementary or alternative product that could cause serious harm, this is it:

Among the different treatments and remedies that are considered “alternative” medicine, homeopathy is the most implausible of all. Homeopathy is an elaborate placebo system, where the “remedies” lack any actual medicine. Based on the idea that “like cures like” (which is sympathetic magic, not science), proponents of homeopathy believe that any substance can be an effective remedy if it’s diluted enough: cancer, boar testicles, crude oil, oxygen, and skim milk are all homeopathic “remedies”. (I think Berlin Wall may be my favorite, though vacuum cleaner dust is a runner-up). The dilution in the case of homeopathy is so significant that there’s mathematically no possibility of even a trace of the original ingredient in the typical remedy – they are chemically indistinguishable from a placebo. To homeopaths, this is a good thing, as dilution is claimed to make the medicine-free “remedy” more potent, not less. As would be expected with inert products, rigorous clinical trials confirm what basic science (and math) predicts: homeopathy’s effects are placebo effects.

...

Do the current FDA standards provide adequate consumer protection, given the marketing of homeopathy for the treatment of very real conditions, like asthma? These products may be labelled “not a rescue inhaler”, but it’s fair to ask why they are sold at all, when they offer no plausible benefit. Last week the FDA issued a warning about homeopathic asthma inhalers:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning consumers not to rely on asthma products labeled as homeopathic that are sold over-the-counter (OTC). These products have not been evaluated by the FDA for safety and effectiveness.

..."


------------------------------------



Selling worthless crap is one thing, but convincing people to use it for actual conditions is another.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Considering FDA's severe limits on calling an existing product "improved," this stance seems weak.

Hypocritical? Dangerous?

[get the red out]

2. No

I don't go for very many limits on personal choices. I know that will get me flamed. And no, I'm not a "tea partier". And yes, I believe in science and take pharmaceuticals (sorry to those offended by my purchasing things from big pharma). I offend everyone about equally.

[HuckleB]

5. So, if someone dies using a homeopathic asthma treatment, that's ok?

[get the red out]

12. Not my decision

[HuckleB]

13. So you don't think regulation matters.

Interesting.

[get the red out]

18. Not on non-toxic items

Are tobacco products legal? You bet! They ARE toxic. A perception that people might not see a Dr if these products exist just isn't solid evidence of harm. Rights in a free country shouldn't be removed by profiling. Especially when toxic items are openly sold. A person might drink to toxic levels if we let liquor be sold, how did that work out?

[HuckleB]

20. Non-toxic doesn't mean safe.

What a strange response.

[get the red out]

21. Not strange

Just not in agreement with YOU.

[HuckleB]

23. And your disagreement indicates that you are ok with people being harmed by said products.

[get the red out]

28. Should we ban everything

because of what we think people will do with it in existence? People have a lot more rights than that. Attack me all you want. It doesn't matter. It is a far more complex issue than telling me off for pointing it out. Do you agree with the "war on drugs"? I don't, I don't want a war on people's choices any more than I want to keep marijuana illegal.

But I'm just a bad person since I have a different point of view. Not the first time I've been thought of that way.

[HuckleB]

59. Should we ban scams that can harm people's health?

Yes.

[SomethingFishy]

64. Then the question becomes, who is scamming you? What if it's the FDA?

It's not like the government has a good track record of telling the truth.
Marijuana is an actual medical plant. It has specific medical uses, and it works. So why is it not legally medicinal? Are you saying no one should use Marijuana as medicine because the FDA hasn't approved it?

I agree that snake oil salesmen should be called out, but you can't protect all the stupid people in the word, you just can't.

[NuclearDem]

24. Yes, strange.

Because you completely ignore why homeopathy is dangerous--it takes money and time away from someone who's sick for them to spend on legitimate treatments, endangering their health.

[get the red out]

25. It doesn't take anything

It's a product, it can't do anything. Just like a cigar can't smoke itself.

[NuclearDem]

32. Holy crap, that was impressive.

[get the red out]

33. People have freedoms

Sorry you are opposed to such.

[NuclearDem]

35. Holy hell, you're on a roll.

[phil89]

54. Please think critically about this.

The harm comes from people thinking they are treating illness when they are not. Taking a phoney cure for asthma could kill a person because they think it's as good as empirically validated treatments.

[SomethingFishy]

65. And harm comes from the FDA not approving natural remedies

that actually work. It's a two way street. Marijuana is the best example. Are you saying Cancer patients shouldn't be allowed to ease the suffering related to the "cure" because the FDA has not approved Marijuana as an anti nausea drug?

I see people emphatically on both sides of the street here. Hate to tell you, but there should be a middle ground. Some natural remedies actually do work and some are just snake oil.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. How about a clear and readable warning that the product is useless? nt.

[get the red out]

30. Fine with me

No issue with that.

[NuclearDem]

34. *woosh*

[LanternWaste]

36. Monday is pretty much the best day available...

"sorry to those offended by my purchasing things from big pharma). I offend everyone about equally...."

Monday is pretty much the best day available for melodramatic self-martyrdom, regardless of its irrelevancy.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. Uhm, so consumer protections against fraud shouldn't exist?

I mean, seriously, this is your argument?

[Romeo.lima333]

3. no - the placebo effect works on some

[HuckleB]

4. The placebo effect only works on subjective symptoms.

We're talking about asthma, which could kill someone.

And a scam is a scam is a scam. Have you looked at how much they charge people? If that's ok, then let's let all the scam artists out of prison.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. of for fuck's sake, do you understand that asthma attacks kill people?

[NuclearDem]

6. Yes, they should. Homeopathy is junk.

[etherealtruth]

7. An emphatic YES

[petronius]

8. I'd say that any claim or statement that a product is a treatment for

a specific medical purpose should be backed up by evidence - if it can't be, the claim should not be permitted in advertising and labeling.

People should be allowed to buy whatever they want, as long as it's not actively unsafe, but the seller shouldn't be allowed to say "for the relief of XYZ" unless the product demonstrably offers some relief...

[Dorian Gray]

22. This

exactly

[jeff47]

39. The Internet is starting to cause that to break down.

Coconut Oil is a new fad cure-all. The people selling it do not make any claims about "the relief of XYZ" on their labels or advertising. Instead, a huge volume of web pages will make that claim for them.

We've separated the snake oil salesmen from the snake oil producers.

[Dont call me Shirley]

63. So then the pharmaceutical companies should have to prove their products are 100% safe! without

side effects and aren't going to harm or kill anyone?

[Marr]

68. Why does that follow?

Many efficacious drugs have harmful side effects. It's just a question of whether the benefits outweigh the potential (or guaranteed) negatives.

They're already required to list side effects.

[PasadenaTrudy]

9. Hell yes! n/t

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Yes.

They need to regulate a lot of the supplements as well. They should at least check to make sure that any kind of drug or supplement has the ingredients that the label claims. Homeopathic shit should just read "water" on the label.

[Oilwellian]

11. Only if they cause an oily discharge n/t

[ripcord]

14. Just leave the metaphysical healers alone

I make good money off of selling them spheres.

[bhikkhu]

15. I think anything that's sold as medicine should be regulated like medicine

as in - it should be tested to see that it does what it claims for the sake of basic public health. People who are sick should be able to buy medicine that effectively treats their maladies. It shouldn't be legal for corporations (big and small) to sell phony medicines in drug stores around the country.

[NickB79]

16. The FDA busted General Mills for claiming Cheerios can reduce cholesterol

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/20090513/fda-warns-on-cheerios-health-claims

Yet we let quacks sell fucking WATER to treat life-threatening diseases.

Yes, crack down on that shit.

[HuckleB]

17. +1,000,000 ... 000

[Thor_MN]

19. Yes. There is nothing in them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Yes, Homepath remmedies should require actual research to show they work.

[Quantess]

31. The FDA should hold them down and burn them with a crack pipe.

First kick the door open and yell "CRACK DOWN!"

[backscatter712]

37. Yes. Homeopathy is proven quackery.

When all the dilutions are done, there's not one molecule left of the "active ingredient" left in your glass of water or sugar pills.

When cancer patients are taking homeopathetic sugar pills instead of chemotherapy, and dying as a result, it's time to crack down.

[Kalidurga]

38. The laws against fraud should apply.

Whether the FDA does anything or not. It's snake oil.

[GliderGuider]

40. Nope.

You can't regulate beliefs or behaviors, and that's what this would be an attempt to do. You can't save everyone from themselves. I wouldn't want to live in a society that tried.

Where I live, manufacturers of homeopathic products already have to be extremely cautious in their wording. As get the red out said, the products aren't toxic. IMO in this case it's the beliefs that are toxic. So don't just swing the ban hammer and risk smashing people's civil liberties in the process - start educating people.

[HuckleB]

50. You have to be joking.

Seriously. You have to be joking.

[GliderGuider]

52. Nope.

Other people have different views and priorities than you do. This is a surprise to you?

[HuckleB]

60. Duh.

That doesn't justify an opinion that scams are a-ok.

Try again.

[Avalux]

41. The FDA monitors use of homeopathic products for adverse events.

It's a voluntary reporting system for people (doctors and patients) who, if a product is suspected of causing a problem, especially a serious problem, are able to report it to the FDA:

https://www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov/fpsr/WorkflowLoginIO.aspx?metinstance=B6B4A4454B17C32FAD09A273459828803AB2BA5A

If the FDA sees a trend for one particular product, sometimes they can yank it from the market. I think they should also require the manufacturer to perform clinical trials for safety to continue marketing.

That's about the only way to keep an eye on 'dietary supplements', as the FDA calls them . Regulation similar to pharma is too expensive and isn't feasible.

[HuckleB]

43. It's plenty feasible, but Big Supplement keeps it from happening.

[bananas]

42. No, they are grandfathered, and should be considered gras. nt

[HuckleB]

49. They are worthless scams.

They only do harm.

[Taitertots]

44. It should have the same legal ramifications as a pharmacutical company that...

sold medicine when empirical testing proved that the medicine did nothing.

[HuckleB]

48. Well, that would include most supplements.

Unfortunately, those are allowed to be sold with impunity, as well.

[Taitertots]

53. To my knowledge most supplements don't say they can cure specific illnesses

And the any health claims are likely based on empirical testing.

I think there should be oversight of the claims made by supplement manufacturers.

[HuckleB]

61. So you haven't been to a supplement seller's store or web page.

And, no, their health claims are not based on good research.

It's time to regulate the scam artists. It's long past time.

[GliderGuider]

45. How many deaths have resulted from treatment foregone due to the use of homeopathics?

In other words, how serious is the issue in real life? I can't find any data, not even speculations.

Given that people are still dying from unregulated OTC meds, as well as from unnecessary medical interventions and other iatrogenic causes (PDF) I think your outrage might be better directed elsewhere. I know that homeopathic use offends your sense of decency, but if you're going to agitate for banning a non-toxic substance, you'd better have some numerical evidence of harm to present.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

[HuckleB]

47. So worthless scams are ok with you.

Treatments that can actually provide benefit are somehow bad, because, well, since they can provide benefits, they sometimes have side effects.

Interesting, but not very helpful, perspective.

[GliderGuider]

51. Did I say medicine was bad?

Nope.
Did I say homeopathics were good?
Nope.
I just think that anything as sweeping as the ban you're hinting at ought to have some evidence to back it up.

Got evidence?

[phil89]

56. Funny you're asking for evidence now.

You need to ask for that BEFORE the scammers start lying to people to sell them fake cure all.

[GliderGuider]

57. People have a right to try and sell whatever they want that's not illegal.

Regulation always comes after harm is detected. You need some kind of actual evidence of harm to regulate the sale of something .

What's your evidence?

[HuckleB]

58. You have to be kidding.

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

[GliderGuider]

62. Thanks for the link. 437 people, eh? That's shocking!

So, how many people do you think die from lack of access to enough food, safe water or rudimentary medical care around the world?

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24482102/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-children-die-lack-health-care/
http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/water/

The total listed in just those articles is 14 million a year. Mostly children, who have no choice in the matter.

437 people? OMG, it's a fucking epidemic of stupidity! Quick somebody, regulate something!

I hope you don't get any splinters from that hobby-horse you're riding.
Toodles!

[valerief]

55. This really isn't different from lying bastard pols who promise to help you

but (1) only make life worse for you and (2) prevent someone who can REALLY help you from being elected.

[hunter]

66. Half a century on now...

... I've never been able to convince deeply entrenched dingbats otherwise.

[Rex]

67. The first question to ask is are they dangerous to society?

That goes for anything.