FDA counters Skeptic claims on Homeopathy

It is now time to be completely confused about homeopathy.

Having been bored to tears by the skeptic propaganda on homeopathy (It doesn’t work; Ineffective treatments; false hope; just sugar solution; no active ingredient because it is so diluted etc. etc. yawn), and while the Australian Government were saying it was ineffective, we’ve seen the Swiss Government give it the thumbs up, it seems Big Pharma may be trying a different tack to stop a growing threat to its business.

The FDA has now announced that homeopathy is so effective it could be dangerous and so must be regulated. On 19th March the FDA published a safety alert on Asthma Homeopathic medications (http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm439014.htm)

And it is URGENT – a meeting in three weeks (anytime now) and a decision!

Part of the argument is that companies produced and sold homeopathic remedies and that was OK when there were just a few homeopaths in America. But now there are many, it is getting out of control and lots of people are being prescribed these dangerous treatments. No, seriously. See http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074360.htm

How could the skeptics get it so wrong?

, , , , , ,

4 comments on “Junk Science? Number 86: FDA counters Skeptic claims on Homeopathy

  1. “homeopathy is so effective it could be dangerous” – well that’s a 180 degree misinterpretation of the situation!

    They are dangerous precisely because they are NOT effective!

    If someone stops taking actual medicine for their asthma and takes an alternative to medicine like homeopathy then it could kill them! Not because the homeopathy does anything active but simply because they are not taking the actual medicine.

    “How could the skeptics get it so wrong?” They aren’t getting anything wrong, they are being consistent (and so are the FDA).

    How could you get this so wrong?

  2. Here is just one example of how the production of homeopathic remedies could go wrong and ought to be subject to proper oversight.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/03/homeopathy

    But of course the real harm comes when homeopathic manufacturers and homeopaths themselves make claims for their products that cannot be subsyantiated.

    (btw. The Swiss Government never gave its ‘thumbs up’. That is a myth. It actually gave it the ‘thumbs down’.)

  3. Thank you for putting this whole issue into perspective. Homeopathy, according to the nay-sayers, is either a colossal waste of money spent by suckers, or dangerous drugs which have never been properly tested. Either way, the end result of excessive regulation is liable to be removal of homeopathic remedies from store shelves unless the people who use those remedies begin to speak up. I sometimes wonder if the nay-sayers are actually as naive as they appear to be from their comments – they certainly have very little originality. They do appear to have plenty of time on their hands. Who benefits from removing homeopathic remedies from the shelves? Certainly not the patients.

  4. I receieved chemo and radio 2013. Homeopathy did help. I know because when I heard other women receiving the same treatment I was clearly feeling better.

    Thus, I dont care what scientists say. Scientists have not helped me with during my treatment. They just want every patient to follow the “protocol” withoun even knowing what kind of person you are (physically and emotionally). As you say, are the phamaceutics feeling threatened? I dont know.

    I have faith in homeopathy. In fact, I have faith in holistic treatment which regular treatment, ie. chemo, clearly is not.

    I chose chemo and radio. But I feel it was me that got me through and not the chemo. I think chemo has too many side effects, thus, it depends on the characteristics of each person to choose a treatment. Not simply use it for everyone.

    We must all be more open minded and listen and try to understand each alternative and be respectful of the option chosen.

    Thus, pharmaceutics simply dont want to listen, dont want to understand and will never do. So, that makes me think what they really want. Only business??? Do they really want the best for the patients? Big question mark.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

HTML tags are not allowed.