STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
FDA Treats Homeopathy as More Dangerous than Opioids
By Joe Jarvis - February 08, 2018

For a long time, homeopathic medicines have not been subject to FDA approval. Now the FDA says homeopathic treatments must follow the same rules as typical drugs. This includes the tens of millions of dollars to run clinical trials to get FDA approval.

The main problem the FDA has is the unproven claims that homeopathic treatments make. They say that claiming without proof that a certain remedy can treat a disease gives someone false hope. They may put their trust and money into something that doesn’t end up helping. Or worse, they might not spend their money on FDA approved drugs!

The FDA approved treatments could never give you false hope or waste your money… right?

What is Homeopathy?

Homeopathic medicines are not the same as natural medicine.

Homeopathy is based on the idea that “like cures like.” That is, if a substance causes a symptom in a healthy person, giving the person a very small amount of the same substance may cure the illness. In theory, a homeopathic dose enhances the body’s normal healing and self-regulatory processes.

While this FDA rule does not itself affect herbal medicine and natural cures, it sets a dangerous precedent. One of my favorite reference books that I mention all the time is The Green Pharmacy. It is an encyclopedia of herbs and foods that can treat common diseases and health issues.

The book presents plenty of evidence. It mentions studies, and laboratory tests to determine the substances in things like garlic and pineapple. But few herbs have gone through double-blind clinical trials to see if they can treat various diseases.

There may be hundreds of years of literature, laboratory tests that confirm the presence of beneficial compounds, and countless anecdotal evidence, but that would not be enough for the FDA.

The FDA applies this strict standard that if it hasn’t gone through FDA approval, it is “unproven.” So the precedent set is that claiming certain herbs and spices treat sickness goes contrary to FDA rules.

This could end up messing with free speech if it goes far enough. How can companies get their natural products out into the market if they can’t tell you what they treat?

Timing

Sometimes the timing of the rules is suspicious. Homeopathy has grown to be a $3 billion industry. The FDA says:

Until relatively recently, homeopathy was a small market for specialized products. Over the last decade, the homeopathic drug market has grown exponentially, resulting in a nearly $3 billion industry that exposes more patients to potential risks associated with the proliferation of unproven, untested products and unsubstantiated health claims.

They go on to explain the uptick in sickness and even death from homeopathic remedies.

To be fair, the FDA does highlight some concerning ingredients in certain homeopathic products. But they don’t provide any statistics, only anecdotes. So there is no clear indication how big of a problem these few products with dangerous chemicals are.

On the other hand, the CDC reports:

Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids were five times higher in 2016 than 1999,1  and sales of these prescription drugs have quadrupled.3 From 1999 to 2016, more than 200,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids.1,2 

As many as 1 in 4 people who receive prescription opioids long term for noncancer pain in primary care settings struggles with addiction.7

The prescription opioid industry in the US is close to $18 billion a year. 46 people die every day from opioid overdoes involving prescription drugs.

So to scale that number back to match the $3 billion homeopathy industry, do 7 people per day die from homeopathic remedies?

There are deaths from homeopathic treatments. What started this push to regulate the industry was the deaths of 8 babies attributed to homeopathic teething tablets between 2006 and 2016. That is tragic, and the company should be held accountable.

Most other deaths associated with homeopathy are for lack of conventional treatment for serious illnesses. These are still extremely few. So few that it is hard to find statistics–the cases seem to be isolated.

Ironically, Healthline uses homeopathic medicines that claim to help ease opioid withdrawal symptoms as an example of why the industry needs to be regulated.

One of the government’s concerns is that people relying on the promise by these unapproved products won’t seek treatments for opioid addiction that have actually been shown to work…

“Many unproven medications or treatment programs for addiction take advantage of the fact that there are people who are vulnerable and in need of help — and who don’t always have the best ways to evaluate whether something is helpful,” said Dr. Carla Marienfeld, an addiction psychiatrist and an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego…

“These products may not be doing direct harm,” said Marienfeld. “But it can also be very detrimental for companies to promise hope, when a person could instead be using an intervention that actually has a lot of evidence showing it is helpful.” …

Marienfeld said medication-assisted treatments using methadone and buprenorphine have “many years of very good data showing that they help decrease cravings, they help retain people in treatment, and they help dramatically decrease use of illicit opioids.”

Translation: the FDA is concerned that people won’t spend their money on opioids to treat opioid addiction.

So treatments with no side effects, but which might not help, are considered worse than methadone and buprenorphine.

3,400 people died from methadone overdoses in 2014.

The CDC does not track deaths from Buprenorphine.

The American government-financed clinical trials of Buprenorphine. It cost $28 million to win FDA approval. This is another story of the revolving door of doctors who go in and out of the FDA and private practices pushing and prescribing drugs. The FDA gave the company a seven-year monopoly on Buprenorphine.

Over 10% of doctors authorized to prescribe it were sanctioned for misbehavior, including insurance fraud and excessive opioid prescribing.

Buprenorphine generated $1.55 billion in sales in 2012 and was responsible for at least 420 overdose deaths in 2003, the year it was introduced.

And yet the FDA still recommends prescribing methadone and buprenorphine, even when patients take other medications which increase the risk of death!

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising that the opioid addiction medications buprenorphine and methadone should not be withheld from patients taking benzodiazepines or other drugs that depress the central nervous system (CNS). The combined use of these drugs increases the risk of serious side effects; however, the harm caused by untreated opioid addiction can outweigh these risks.

Somehow the FDA pushing these drugs–which account for thousands of deaths every year–is not taking advantage of people. But offering over the counter help to people who may otherwise not seek treatment is bad.

Be Smart: There are some real issues with homeopathy. I’m a skeptic, so I likely wouldn’t try homeopathy unless nothing else worked.

Homeopathy seems like the type of thing to use to prevent allergies. It doesn’t seem like the go-to solution for cancer. That being said, the conventional cancer treatments can themselves be very harmful…

Don’t use homeopathy in life or death situations. And look into exactly what chemicals are in homeopathic treatments.

But a handful of deaths should not put an entire industry in jeopardy. Small companies cannot afford clinical trials to get FDA approval. The regulation favors large established pharmaceutical companies, whether or not their products are safe.

The FDA ignores thousands of deaths every year from drugs they approved. But they are concerned about misleading addicts into wasting money and effort on something not proven to treat addiction.

As usual, the money tells a different story.

Note: This article has been updated to remove a comparison between homeopathic cures and vaccinations.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!

 

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
 
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
 
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.
 

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Homeopathy products are not herbal products (and many of the starting products are also not even of plant origin). Many homeopathy products – if manufactured correctly – will not contain even a molecule of the original substance it’s supposedly made from because of the frequent extreme dilutions used.

    For example, the populat homeopathy product from Boiron, Oscillococcinum, is diluted to 200C in homeopathic nomenclature. The ‘active ingredient’ has (if manufactured correctly) been diluted to one part in:

    10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

    That’s a 1 followed by 400 zeros.

    Because of this (and for many other reasons) the homeopaths’ notion that ‘like cures like’ has no similarities with vaccinations or innoculations.

    • Joe Jarvis

      Thanks for the correction. It has been changed and noted. Seems like that kind of dilution makes homeopathy useless, though not dangerous.

      • Gold

        The danger comes in when people rely on it for things that won’t just get better.

        Gloria Sam died of sepsis as a complication of eczema because her parents used homeopathy for the eczema. Her parents were homeopaths. Eczema is very easily treated today and is not considered a life threatening illness.

        Penelope Dingle is another one that is very well documented. Homeopathy for cancer. It ended as expected. Slowly and painfully. The coroner’s report is not bedtime reading. Francine Scrayen, her homeopath, wouldn’t even let Penelope take painkillers.

  • Gold

    Or worse, they might not spend their money on FDA approved drugs!

    Well that doesn’t sound like a loaded claim at all. Reading that in context I got the impression that the author thinks the FDA gets a kickback from the sales. This moved from reporting or journalism to an opinion piece very quickly.

  • Gold

    This is similar to the idea of vaccinations and inoculations.

    Nope. Not even vaguely correct.

    Vaccines introduce a dead virus into the bloodstream so that the body can build up antibodies and recognize a similar live virus. Inoculation presents enough of a harmful disease that the body develops resistance, but not enough to make you sick.

    From your own description of how a vaccine works you rebut your own claim that homeopathy is similar to vaccination. Properly prepared Homeopathy has been diluted so much that the odds of getting a pill or drop of water/alcohol with even a single molecule of the original substance is to low that it would be more accurate to say that there is literally nothing in it.

    The fact that this idea prevails within the homeopathic community just shows the level of scientific illiteracy among these people.

    • Joe Jarvis

      Thanks for the correction. The article has been updated and the update noted. I am not part of the “homeopathic community” so that is where the confusion came from. I agree, it seems like such a dilution makes homeopathy useless. The point however, is the double standard of the FDA.

      • Gold

        You updated the article? That’s a breath of fresh air. 🙂

        I have to admit that from the FDA angle my knowledge base is not as strong as that of the “science” behind homeopathy. Take anything I say on that topic as a layman’s understanding of the organisation.

        Having said that, the nature of large organisations and the nature of conspiracy theories is something I can speak on.

      • The FDA’s ‘double standards’ are that they have two levels: one for pharmaceutical products where the manufacturers have to provide evidence from phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials (as unsatisfactory as that process is) and homeopathy products that require not a jot of evidence they work. In fact, all that’s required is that the product is written up in the homeopaths book of magic spells aka the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the US (HPUS) – and that’s entirely controlled by homoeopaths. Talk about vested Interests!

    • utter nonsense

      • Gold

        Prove it.

        I at least gave an explanation for my case.

        What about my explanation is utter nonsense? And why? The “why” will be the thing that will be most interesting.

        • I live what I say in spades and I have proved it many times, not just with a morons like you ? I have proof, you have zero, except words that mean absolutely nothing. That is a very big difference indeed. See the links and weep for your ignorance

          • Gold

            So… you can’t give an example from my comment that is, as you put it, “utter nonsense”.

            You’ve made a number of posts so far and the replies you’ve made to the replies to your posts have added nothing of value to the conversation. You come across as very defensive, full of bluster and the personality that comes through just makes you seem like you’re full of it.

            If you can’t engage in a manner that will foster useful conversation you’re just not worth the effort. You are generally an unpleasant person.

      • Which bit it utter nonsense?

        • every word uttered !

          • Gold

            A useful answer would have given an example that was utter nonsense and and explained why.

            As it stands your reply was worthless as it added no extra information to the conversation.

  • Gold

    The book presents plenty of evidence.

    A book will show a cherry-picked selection of data from a snapshot in time.

    I would recommend people search out the scientific consensus on a topic, find the people that helped establish that consensus and look at books that they recommend. You are more likely to get a book with a fair representation of the consensus. Just be aware, it’s a book. That snapshot in time may be out of date the moment you click Checkout.

    • Joe Jarvis

      It’s a reference book. For instance, it details the amount of bromelain in pineapple, and compares that to the medically recommended doses of bromelain to treat bursitis and tendinitis. Plenty of scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, but you are right, that might be a good place to start. The Green Pharmacy is not controversial, it simply covers what compounds are found in herbs and foods.

      • Gold

        That’s does actually sound like a useful book. As per my previous qualifier though, unless it’s on the reading list of a few experts in the field that align with the scientific consensus I’d approach with caution.

        As you point out, the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, but science is self correcting and the consensus tends to update itself with the acceptance of newer, repeated ideas. I should have phrased that as the *current* scientific consensus.

      • Peter Olins

        “…medically recommended doses of bromelain to treat bursitis and tendinitis.”

        You’re kidding, right? Feel free to offer evidence or rationale for how this protease would treat these conditions. (Unless, of course, if you are referring to homeopathic doses.)

        Bromelain does work as a meat tenderizer, but I have no intention of injecting it into my knees — which just happen to be suffering from bursitis.

        • Joe Jarvis

          Who said anything about injecting? You eat pineapple and your body absorbs bromelain. It is anti-inflammatory. Ginger too. Licorice root is another great source. Just look up the compounds present in these foods, and you will understand why they help.

          • Gold

            Ah… Bromelain is broken down in the stomach. There’s no opportunity for it’s anti-inflammatory properties to have any effect on the body. Unless you’re looking at it for treating inflammation in the mouth or throat.

          • Peter Olins

            OK Joe. I checked a review of studies on bromelain for tendinitis.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27331031

            The final sentence of the conclusions is as follows:
            For these reasons, it is not possible to draw any definitive raccomendations[sic] on the use of nutraceutical supplementation in tendinopathies.

            (Of course, bromelain is “natural”, so there is far less demand for studies to make sure that it’s safe, but that’s a whole separate conversation.)

            If you have more information that we should know about, please share.

      • That book is 20 years old but you might find the NCCIH more authoritative and accurate, even if it is renowned for being biased towards quackery: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/herbsataglance.htm

        The upshot of it all is that there is scant good evidence for just about all herbal products.

        • Gold

          The upshot of it all is that there is scant good evidence for just about all herbal products.

          Excuse the flippent nature of the quote, but the content is telling.

          To quote Dara Ó Briain: “I’m sorry, ‘herbal medicine’, “Oh, herbal medicine’s been around for thousands of years!” Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became ‘medicine’. And the rest of it is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri, so knock yourselves out.”

          Having quoted that I still think there’s interesting things to be found. But the obvious and easy things are, for the most part, already discovered.

          • shay simmons

            I still swear by my granny’s cold cure, but that’s partly because it involves hot water and rum.

          • FallsAngel

            I’ll take some!

          • Gold

            Is this the 7-Day one?

            The one I use currently takes about a week.

          • shay simmons

            It depends on how long you can make the rum last.

          • ‘Not very long’, is the correct answer here…

          • Gold

            Is there a local shortage of rum where you are?

          • shay simmons

            No but it’s snowing and I’m 25 miles from the closest liquor store.

          • Gold

            Close enough. You should come to New Zealand for your winter. 🙂

          • So sorry to hear that.

          • shay simmons

            It does require a certain amount of weekly planning.

          • shay simmons

            Only when my youngest brother is visiting.

        • Peter Olins

          A surprising number of these herbs are dangerous. However, they still make plenty of money for Big-Supplement, because expensive safety trials are not required.

    • john cummins

      define scientific consensus, i’ve been in scientific research for over 30 years as a profession and I hear these terms and then in the reality of the day upon talking to other scientists never see this “consensus” in areas such as climate change, global warming, biofuels, and many many more issues said to be in consensus, so I like to hear a defintion and really, since when must there be said consensus?

      What I’v eseen as the necessity of consensus ends up more often being administrative bullying (the same people that cry out against bullying, btw).

      • Gold

        My understanding of what forms a scientific consensus is when the vast majority of good quality research shows a similar outcome.

        In the case of climate change when you look at this it is very clear that there is a consensus. The fact that you’ve found some people that don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

        As for “since when must there be said consensus”… I’m confused about the “must” in that statement? It’s not about there having to be one. It is just a thing that happens when there is enough research that we can collect it all, filter out poor quality work, aggregate what is left and see what that shows. There isn’t a “must”.

  • Gold

    There may be hundreds of years of literature, laboratory tests that confirm the presence of beneficial compounds, and countless anecdotal evidence, but that would not be enough for the FDA.

    The problems here:
    * There’s not “hundreds of years of literature”.
    Homeopathy is barely 200 years old. I frequently hear the claim of “hundreds of thousands of care reports and 200+ years of research” but when you ask for links to it no one can provide any evidence of such a record. A recent commenter I challenged on this pointed me at the CORE-Hom database on hri-research. I already had access to that. It’s a good start, but there’s only 1014 records in the database and the oldest is from 1941. This hardly matches the claim. This person followed up with more links but they barely added more than 100 records to the collection and the oldest of those was from 2011.

    * Laboratory tests that confirm the presence of beneficial compounds?
    If there are tests that show “beneficial compounds” this isn’t actual homeopathy.

    * Countless anecdotal evidence…
    Anecdotes are not evidence. The continued insistence on this being presented as such just further reinforces the scientific illiteracy amongst supporters of homeopathy.

    The FDA applies this strict standard that if it hasn’t gone through FDA approval, it is “unproven.” So the precedent set is that claiming certain herbs and spices treat sickness goes contrary to FDA rules.

    “Unproven”? No. The word you are looking for is “Unapproved”. What they are wanting to have demonstrated is that the product, when properly prepared, has any risks known and quantified so that guidelines on proper application can be established. i.e. Suitable for purpose.

    And again, there’s nothing in these pilules.

    • Joe Jarvis

      The “hundreds of years” comment was clearly in reference to the book on natural not homeopathic remedies. The comparison was to make the point that the same arguments against homeopathy could be applied to herbal medicines which do in fact have plenty of evidence (even if homeopathy does not).

      • Gold

        My mistake. I admit that my response was from the point of view of homeopathy. And that claim is almost the exact claim we regularly see from homeopaths.

        I’m still reading the article, but are there organisations around herbal medicines in the same way that there are for homeopathy?

      • But do the pharma companies actually prove anything really works as claimed many times ? And then you get into the many horrid side affects and the drugs are still approved many times.

        If you still believe any of these agencies are in fact looking out for you or perhaps your health, you are very naive indeed.The economics and legal junk surrounding all of it is simply a facade to spoon feed the big pharma corps exactly what they want and call it official or legal or some such garbage.

        Bottom line is simple. We are all responsible for our own health and well being just as we are responsible for any merits or demerits accordingly, as the case may be in every matter and event in our life. We can all choose not to participate in any of the insane supposed health care system and opt out for our own remedies and health. In fact nothing else makes any sense at all. Most people do not do this out of fear and therefore are stuck in poor heal and a seriously broken supposed health care system. That fear is that only if they have insurance can they be healthy ? And that is simply 100% false and nothing but another false narrative created to control people and their money. Nothing new at all in USA today !

        • Gold

          But do the pharma companies actually prove anything really works as claimed many times ?

          They publish the research. They are increasingly publishing it in open access journals too. You could actually answer your question for yourself.

          And then you get into the many horrid side affects and the drugs are still approved many times.

          Look up risk/benefit ratio. For something to have any effect at all it will, by definition, have an effect. The odds that you have something that only has one effect is bordering on non-existent because the same thing can have different effects on where it is in the body. This fiction that something can be side effect free is just that. A fiction.

          Effects are quantified and desired effects become the “purpose” for a medication. Undesired effects become “side effects”. The individual, in consultation with someone that knows the subject matter well, like a doctor, will have to weigh the risk of potentially having one of these other effects against the benefit they’ll get from desired effect.

          Bottom line is simple. We are all responsible for our own health and well being just as we are responsible for any merits or demerits accordingly, as the case may be in every matter and event in our life.

          Agreed. All the more reason for each of us to be as well informed as possible so as to make the best possible decision.

          • Keith Liberty

            Research that is glorified, backed and financed by the very powers that are pushing their dangerous products…..treatments….no cures….. on the general public

          • Does that apply equally to homeoapthy research?

          • Gold

            Where would you recommend funding come from? Why aren’t you pointing that out instead? Your comment would be constructive and worth while at that point.

        • Gold

          Most people do not do this out of fear and therefore are stuck in poor heal and a seriously broken supposed health care system.

          You mean most people in the USA.

          Almost anywhere else has a sane and functional healthcare system, where there is a healthcare system, in comparison to the USA. You people are crazy on that front…

          • shay simmons

            Amen.

          • NJo, you are the crazy one, not me at all. I do not play into any of it for good reason and well ahead of you on every point and outcome. And enjoyng it all in real time everyday !

            see the links, the proof and suck up your ig-norance. Yo have zero proof of anyhting , I have much and it is very real !

          • Gold

            NJo, you are the crazy one, not me at all. I do not play into any of it for good reason and well ahead of you on every point and outcome. And enjoyng it all in real time everyday !

            see the links, the proof and suck up your ig-norance. Yo have zero proof of anyhting , I have much and it is very real !

            Ah… I made a comment on the nature of the healthcare system in the USA compared to almost any other country in the world. Also, from the context of my final line anyone with basic grammar skills would see that it is clear that the “you” mentioned there is not you personally, but addressing the people that live there that think it is a functional healthcare system.

            Your response addressed nothing on that topic.

            If you had started with “NJo[ic], you are the crazy one, not me at all. [And here’s why your opinion of the US healthcare system is not right]” then that would have been constructive.

            But your response wasn’t constructive.

      • Joe Jarvis said:

        “The FDA wants people to prove that their products work. The problem is it costs millions of dollars.”

        Why is that a problem? But don’t you think the public deserve that manufacturers prove their products do what they claim for them?

        • Gold

          From the point of view of Homeopathy, that is now a recognised USD$3 billion industry, you’d think they could afford to test and prove that it works to a suitable standard.

          Despite this, it has been tested and found to be no better than a similarly administered placebo. A weight of good quality research could sway this. If the Homeopathy industry isn’t willing to step up I think that say’s more about what they actually think of Homeopathy than anything else.

          • Acleron

            Small uncontrolled studies run by researchers with an attitude of trying to prove homeopathy works are more than likely to produce positive results. Boiron spends a lot of money but only on such trials and often with a Boiron employee in the author list. It is almost as if they know that large, well controlled trials will fail.

          • Gold

            That could be an interesting thing to do. Pull up a list of such studies with Boiron employees on the authors list and see hom much they actually spend. Thenvery publically point out this amount and ask why they don’t do larger trials.

          • Acleron

            Have mentioned it before, the response is the usual gibberish. There are also certain authors, Frass and deWitt are among them, who can guarantee a positive result for homeopathy whichever disease state they look at. Weird eh?

          • Gold

            That feels like there should be a named informal logical fallacy for it.. Like all Chinese Acupuncture studies being positive. The fact there’s no false studies at all is suspicious in and of itself.

          • shay simmons

            If you settle on the result before you construct the experiment, it’s easy.

      • Tetenterre

        herbal medicines which do in fact have plenty of evidence

        Indeed, and many pharmaceuticals are derived from herbal medicines (quinine/cinchona bark and aspirin/willow bark may be the best known, but are far from the only ones).

        However, there are problems with herbal medicines that are difficult to overcome, largely related to the way plants produce biologically active compounds (BACs). Even slightly differing growing conditions can result in markedly different concentrations of BACs, with the consequence that, unless a herbal sample has been assayed, the consumer has no way of knowing either the dose of the required BAC or the dose of other BACs in the plant that will have side effects.

        A dramatic (albeit not consumed for medical purposes) example of this was the courgette that produced sufficient toxin (cucurbitacin), probably due to water-stress, to kill one of the consumers of the stew that contained the courgette.

    • In many matters I far prefer anectdotal evidence, as it is in fact proof of what works many times. Proof as in results, which is alI I ever care about and likely should.

      The problem is all of the agencies have simply become enabling outlets for the the very people they are supposedly watching and overseeing. It is true in every matter and event as we are seeing with the DSA being exposed and the many crimes of the DOJ , FBI, IRS and others. Our government and all its agencies is out of control, simple as that. The massive bureaucracy has become the monster feeding itself with your tax dollars.

      Also part of it issimply that we all gave over our capacity to think to the many so-called professionals and supposed educated class some decades ago as if they are smarter and can make better decisions for you ? Of course that includes many in government, as lawyers are in many government positions . So of course it has all morphed into many lies and distortions ! Why would anybody be surprised at all that our system is seriously broken at every level ?

      Here is why I like anectdotal and results as my only guide and not necessarily what many call science today !

      http://www.downtoearththinking.com/fitness-over-60-a-mindset-of-health.html

      I will be 70 very soon and stronger and healthier than most 25 year olds. So I imagine I am dong somethings quite right, hey ? I was also crippled for the better part of 10 years and healed myself without doctors or any supposed medicines they provide. There is a far better way to live and think and I am living proof ! Not at all difficult to do as well, just have to know how and get on with it ! That is exactly what it teach many people.

      • Gold

        In many matters I far prefer anectdotal evidence, as it is in fact proof of what works many times. Proof as in results, which is alI I ever care about and likely should.

        @JoeOfHouseJarvis:disqus, this is an example of what I was saying about the nature of the homeopathy supporters. Regardless of how many times you explain why anecdotes aren’t useful as anything more than a pointer for where research could focus, these people will still cling to them.

        • Keith Liberty

          Still waiting on that traditional medical cure for cancer….60 years and counting….

          Meanwhile….

          How To Produce An Intracellular Calcium Deluge To Induce Cancer Cell Death

          By Bill Sardi

          February 2, 2018

          https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/bill-sardi/how-to-produce-an-intracellular-calcium-deluge-to-induce-cancer-cell-death/

          Typical dosage ranges of these nutrients used to maintain health are provided and are frequently combined and consumed without significant side effects by healthy adults. There is little likelihood of serious side effects.

          Calcium (1200-1500 mg/day)
          Selenium (100-200 mcg/day)
          Vitamin D3 (8000-10,000 IU/day)
          IP6 rice bran extract (800+ mg/day)
          Peppermint oil for menthol (optional)

          Take these dietary supplements daily on an empty stomach if possible to induce cancer cell death via overwhelming release of calcium within tumor cells. Healthy cells will not be harmed.

          • Gold

            Spamming the same quackery isn’t going to make it any more credible. See my comment to the top post on the matter.

        • OK then explain this Einstein and how I healed my self after being crippled for nearly 10 years ?

          http://www.downtoearththinking.com/fitness-over-60-a-mindset-of-health.html

          http://www.downtoearththinking.com/health-a-simple-approach-to-overall-well-being-.html

          None of this is coincidence , just lots of tenacity and research you likely do not have. I often say I am living proof of what I say and that is just a fact. And your proof besides your meaningless bluster is exactly what ? Mine is very real and visible and verifiable.Your is just words and nonsense.

          • Gold

            I’ve read your story before. At least I’ve read that site before. This is the internet. There’s no telling who “you” really are.

            This story is nothing more than “live healthy and get exercise.” This is common sense advice and there is nothing special about it.

            There are a couple of points here;

            0. There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence. You have anecdotes or evidence. “Anecdotal evidence” is an oxymoron.
            1. This is an unverified and unverifiable random story on the internet. You know… An anecdote.
            2. Without controls the author could have no idea how things could have turned out if done differently. What worked for the author may not work for others.

            You say you prefer anecdotes. How do you gauge which are reliable?

          • I am all bout actual results ad nothing else. You are all about words, big difference. Here is the proof that makes you look like a fool for trying to undermine my site. So does action speak louder than words or not ?

            http://www.downtoearththinking.com/fitness-over-60-a-mindset-of-health.html

            You have no idea what you are talking about, much less any proof. I have proof of everything I say. Big difference, wake up and do yourself a favor

          • Awww… bless.

          • Gold

            And your proof besides your meaningless bluster is exactly what ?

            I’m not convinced I made any claim to have proof of. I expressed an opinion. If you’re looking for a claim within that you’ll need to be a little more clear in what you’re asking for.

          • If you cannot see results are all that matter, not words, you are truly ignorant.

    • Keith Liberty

      But the FDA still hasn’t banned Roundup from our foods or attacked opiods and prescrip meds killing millions….zzzzzzz

      • Gold

        This isn’t their job.

        Opioids and the prescription drugs you reference, used correctly, are safe. That is the extend of the FDAs remit. If you’re wanting to tackle the opiod/prescrip meds issue you need to look at medical councils.

        Roundup is safe when used as directed.

        I don’t expect any rational response from @disqus_rdNVm4zKkn:disqus on these replies. Unless he makes a specific claim, backed by evidence from reputable sources I’m not going to bother getting sucked into a pointless discussion.

  • Earn nest

    And you can’t even sue the vaccine pushers! Thanks for all the protection lackies.

    • Verna Lang

      The standard of proof in the vaccine court, NVICP, is actually lower than in civil courts. This is a long read, but gives a thorough description of why the court was set up and how its decisions have been misinterpreted to push the misinformation about everything being a vaccine injury. https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/using-misusing-legal-decision-nvicp.pdf

      • Earn nest

        Who do you work for Verna?

        • LOL!

        • Peter Olins
        • Verna Lang

          The firm of me, myself and I. Self employed. However, I was recruited as a soldier in the fight against microorganisms while as an undergrad. It’s hard to spend a year listening to Morbidity and Mortality Weekly and hearing how even a plant pathogen can take out a human being under the right circumstances and not conclude that humanity’s and our domestic animal’s biggest enemy has and will be bacteria and viruses. (Does no one remember Old Yeller!) The vaccine syringe is just one of our weapons in that war.
          You, on the other hand, must have been turned as a traitor to the human race by trying to boost the numbers of victims of measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, rabies, polio, diphtheria, influenza and all the rest of those microbial infections. Who got to you? Was it Big Coffin and their profits from caskets and headstones? Big Hospital, who will have to expand and reopen dedicated hospitals to diphtheria again? Or was it Big Pharma, who profits more from treating complications in an outbreak than it ever will from vaccines? I know it wasn’t Big Insurance. They lose big time from paying hospital bills and paying out on life insurance policies.

          • Earn nest

            Vaccines are surely a useful tool. But regarding the human race it is their freedom to choose, both their facts and their decisions about them that concerns me. The use of force to coerce. And I am glad you’re independent Verna. Laso it was terribly sad about Ol’ Yeller.

          • Verna Lang

            Since when do people get to choose their facts? Opinions, yes. Facts, no.
            No one is being forced to vaccinate any more than anyone is forced not to drive drunk or not to speed in a school zone. However, there are consequences for those actions because of the risk of hurting and killing other people.
            Many decisions come with consequences. Vaccine refusers broke the unwritten social contract to protect their children and other people by deciding not to vaccinate. They should not complain about force when being denied entry to schools and daycare. No one is taking their children and vaccinating them. That would be force. They made the decision. They should be prepared to face the consequences of society not letting their unprotected children put other children at risk.

          • Earn nest

            Nor should they have to pay for the education system. But I otherwise agree. Perhaps I should rather have used the term data set than facts; it’s just that so often people supply facts, such as this year the flu vaccine was only 17% effective, but don’t supply any other facts that might support a different opinion.

          • Gold

            But regarding the human race it is their freedom to choose, both their facts and their decisions about them that concerns me.

            Perhaps I should rather have used the term data set than facts

            You are literally advocating for cherry picking data here.

          • Acleron

            Very good points.

    • JoeFarmer

      Wrong. There is a specific court for vaccine injury claims with lower evidentiary standards than a typical civil court.

      • Earn nest

        Wuh hey! You read Verna’s paper?

        • JoeFarmer

          You were incorrect, I pointed it out. It’s not that complicated, champ.

          • Earn nest

            Funny too, about the special courts huh? No they were necessary to protect the guilty from excessive punishment. Point really is we aren’t going for mandatory vaccinations. I have seen “autism” develop immediately after a vaccine was administered.

          • JoeFarmer

            “Funny too, about the special courts huh? No they were necessary to protect the guilty from excessive punishment.”

            Funny in the sense that the standard of evidence is lower in the vaccine court, yes.

            ” Point really is we aren’t going for mandatory vaccinations.”

            Who is “we”? Are you claiming to speak for people or organizations beyond yourself?

            ” I have seen “autism” develop immediately after a vaccine was administered.”

            Autism is not caused by vaccines.

          • Earn nest

            Yes I am and you seem to speak wrongly with great authority.

          • JoeFarmer

            “Yes I am…”

            And who would this group be? How were you appointed spokesperson?

            “…you seem to speak wrongly with great authority.”

            What have I posted that’s incorrect, champ? Try to keep in mind that you started with this: ‘And you can’t even sue the vaccine pushers! Thanks for all the protection lackies.’
            Then you changed to this: ‘Funny too, about the special courts huh? No they were necessary to protect the guilty from excessive punishment’ which means your first statement was “spoken wrongly with great authority”.

          • Earn nest

            To sides to the issue champ, and the courts were created to appease. Pharma would like to mandate vaccines and not even develop cures these days I notice.

          • JoeFarmer

            “To (sic) sides to the issue champ…”

            That doesn’t explain your use of “we”.

            “Pharma would like to mandate vaccines and not even develop cures these days I notice.”

            Then your noticing skills aren’t very good. First, “pharma” doesn’t get to mandate anything. What do you think would be more financially advantageous to a drug company, a) people getting a disease and needing intensive treatment for said disease, or b) earning a relatively small amount of money for a vaccine that prevents people from getting that disease in the first place?

            How about you provide some examples of drug companies not working to develop cures?

          • Earn nest

            Right and wrong, Joe. Carbon taxes, chemtrailing, other mandatory subjugations. Issues of force and freedom. Blue pill/Red pill.

          • JoeFarmer

            Rather than admitting you’ve been pretty much wrong on everything, you now go full-blown tinfoil hatter and bring up the imaginary chemtrails. Allrighty, then!

          • Earn nest

            Thanks, you’ve told me what I wanted to know about you.

          • JoeFarmer

            That I don’t suffer fools lightly? Yep, now you know!

            Watch out for those black helicopters and remember that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you!

          • Earn nest

            I actually know guys that fly in black helicopters. We’re the good guys too.

          • JoeFarmer

            Of course you do. Now holler up from the basement and see if your mom will make you a hot pocket for lunch.

          • Earn nest

            Make an effort joe.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re not very good at this.

          • Earn nest

            Good aatt what?

          • Earn nest
          • JoeFarmer

            You’re really, really not good at this.

          • Earn nest

            Truth has a way of finding you, genius.

          • Earn nest

            Generally people choose their own facts if they are unscientific or manipulative. But self hatred is one of the worst afflictions in our present society so here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PviOokk4hbU,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_Hlkz8dDs These are the first two, randomly chosen posts on youtbe of which you may find hundreds for yourself.

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re not getting any better at this. Time to add, “failed internet troll” to your resume.

          • Acleron

            Yup, you found that JoeFarmer is not delusional unlike you.

          • Earn nest

            Nor wrong about anything.

          • FallsAngel

            What JoeFarmer said about the vaccine court.

            There are no mandatory vaccines in the US.

            Please describe one incident where you saw this “autism” develop immediately after a vaccine was administered. Be specific, and remember what immediately means.

          • Peter Olins

            And your medical credentials for diagnosing “autism” are…?

      • FallsAngel
      • Ephraiyim

        Yes but there are limitations on the award. Juries should decide what the award should be not some bureaucrats.

        • JoeFarmer

          See if you can convince your congressman, I’m not seeing merit in your statement.

        • Ephraiyim

          Joe, we are prob not going to agree. I want to see us move in the direction of little to no govt.
          You seem to think some govt. is good.

  • Gold

    @JoeOfHouseJarvis:disqus, the free speech angle is an interesting one.

    Without something like the FDA to hold people accountable we end up in the situation we used to be in with snakeoil salesmen making outlandish claims and taking advantage of the ignorant and desperate. And thanks to the internet these people have a massive reach now.

    I am under no illusion that the FDA is perfect, but without a suggestion of how it could be fixed this article isn’t really constructive.

    So, how do you think it could be fixed? Or what would you suggest replace it? And given the scale of the job it does, how would we prevent the new thing from falling into the same issues?

    • Gold

      I have one suggestion: Openness. Force everything about the approval process to be conducted in public.

      Also, make the financial accounts of the organisation open also. A common refrain of those rallying against large organisations is “follow the money”. Make that a matter of public record.

      • Joe Jarvis

        I would suggest private third party organizations, labs, universities etc. look into the safety. Already food companies go above and beyond what the USDA requires because the customers want more than that. http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/why-trust-in-government-is-at-all-time-lows-and-why-thats-a-good-thing/

        Private companies have an incentive to deliver. But the FDA doesn’t lose funding when it screws up, and people don’t have the option of going elsewhere to get approval when they are corrupt.

        • Gold

          That is kind of what already happens as I understand it. The FDA just assesses the data from these. They don’t actually *do* the safety testing themselves.

          The thing with this approach though is that you would also need oversight on these third party groups. They would be just as susceptible, if not more so, than a single organisation.

          • Joe Jarvis

            Who watches the watchers? It’s always the same problem with oversight. The FDA is more susceptible to corruption because of the revolving door of politics, and their ability to hand out taxpayers dollars.

    • Hugh Jardon

      The FDA’a approval process is corrupt or at the very least accommodative.Money speaks louder than a few thousand deaths, after which they can recall the toxic substance once the billions are made. Perhaps adapting the clinical trials to a blockchain technology would result in “uncoruptible” data.

      • Ephraiyim

        Can anyone say cannabis?

      • Gold

        That would need to be incorporated at the data collection stage. It could also be achieved with any form of cryptographic signing. Adding a blockchain wouldn’t really work at this point either. Not until they sort out the cost (time and processing effort) of verifying transactions on it when it gets large. And a single data-heavy trial could easily blow it out of the water.

        From the point of view of “incorruptible” data though, that’s never going to be achieved. When you get down to it if we cryptographically signed every datum the conspiracy theorists would move up the line and challenge the integrity of the software collecting the data.

        You would also want something like All Trials ( http://www.alltrials.net/ ) to register these studies. You could register a public key with each trial announced on the system.

        • I don’t suppose you know of any homeopathy manufacturers that have signed up to AllTrials? Me neither.

    • Ephraiyim

      Pharmaceutical companies are still selling a lot of snake oil. Look at the push to put nearly everyone on statins.

  • Licia

    For starters I am looking forward to reading the clinical studies on cancer curing baking soda.

    • Gold

      They should be out already given Britt Hermes (ex-naturopath, PhD student in evolutionary biology) is being sued by Colleen Huber (naturopath, crazy person) for pointing out they don’t exist and the claim is crazy.

      • Keith Liberty

        How To Produce An Intracellular Calcium Deluge To Induce Cancer Cell Death

        By Bill Sardi

        February 2, 2018

        https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/bill-sardi/how-to-produce-an-intracellular-calcium-deluge-to-induce-cancer-cell-death/

        Typical dosage ranges of these nutrients used to maintain health are provided and are frequently combined and consumed without significant side effects by healthy adults. There is little likelihood of serious side effects.

        Calcium (1200-1500 mg/day)
        Selenium (100-200 mcg/day)
        Vitamin D3 (8000-10,000 IU/day)
        IP6 rice bran extract (800+ mg/day)
        Peppermint oil for menthol (optional)

        Take these dietary supplements daily on an empty stomach if possible to induce cancer cell death via overwhelming release of calcium within tumor cells. Healthy cells will not be harmed.

        • Gold

          So… No actual research published in a respected peer-reviewed journal then?

        • Verna Lang

          Bill Sardi? Based on a total misinterpretation of the results of a study comparing supplementation with calcium and Vitamin D versus placebo. There is a reason for the statistical analysis used in the study. It concluded there was no difference between the placebo and treated groups as far as cancer incidence. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2613159?JamaNetworkReader=True
          I guess Green Med Info is not the only quack site to twist the conclusions of a study to a point where the original authors would no longer be able to recognize their work.

  • Keith Liberty

    How about the FDA research this….cancer free family using this regimen….

    How To Produce An Intracellular Calcium Deluge To Induce Cancer Cell Death

    By Bill Sardi

    February 2, 2018

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/bill-sardi/how-to-produce-an-intracellular-calcium-deluge-to-induce-cancer-cell-death/

    Typical dosage ranges of these nutrients used to maintain health are provided and are frequently combined and consumed without significant side effects by healthy adults. There is little likelihood of serious side effects.

    Calcium (1200-1500 mg/day)
    Selenium (100-200 mcg/day)
    Vitamin D3 (8000-10,000 IU/day)
    IP6 rice bran extract (800+ mg/day)
    Peppermint oil for menthol (optional)

    Take these dietary supplements daily on an empty stomach if possible to induce cancer cell death via overwhelming release of calcium within tumor cells. Healthy cells will not be harmed.

    • Keith Liberty said:

      “How about the FDA research this….cancer free family using this regimen….”

      Why should they?

    • Gold

      How about Bill Sardi does the research? It isn’t the FDA’s job to do the actual research. If Bill was a capable and competent researcher he’d come up with a protocol and publish that, along with his reasoning for why he believes it to be valid. It would be examined by peers in the field, likely picked apart, Bill would address the points made and update the protocol or explain why the criticism is not right. This process would continue until all issues were settled and a robust paper would be the result.

      If he’s not got this, then he’s got nothing worth trusting in.

  • gerald brennan

    99% of homeopathy haters (not sceptics) believe what they have been force-fed by the media that generally despises anything out of the mainstream pharmacopoeia. Millions rely on homeopathy worldwide *for that which homeopathy can treat*. Most homeopaths are MDs, DOs, or Naturopaths who specialize, after their degree, in homeopathy. They understand that a bacterial infection needs antibiotics, for example.
    There are many positive studies on homeopathic treatments. Go here for a taste:
    https://hpathy.com/scientific-research/database-of-positive-homeopathy-research-studies/
    The remedies are inexpensive, and the big pharma money has been railing against the discipline for decades.
    What the haters will never prevail against, are the millions of families who have witnessed the startling efficacy of homeopathy, with a case that is appropriate, and a well-chosen remedy. These people have been to the well and drank from it; they know the water is cold, and no amount of you telling them it is actually hot is going to change their minds.

    • gerald brennan said:

      “There are many positive studies on homeopathic treatments. Go here for a taste:
      https://hpathy.com/scientif…”

      Are all these studies of the same quality? And why don’t they list negative studies?

      • Ephraiyim

        FDA doesn’t even require drug companies to list all side effects in literature. Even physicians are not always given them.
        I was on the wrong insulin for 4 yrs. I kept telling the family practice physician it was wrong. Was hungry all the time and putt on over 100#’s in two yrs.
        Their response? “Well you obliviously have no self control. We’re sending you to an endocrinologist”.
        First words out of his mouth…” Sir, you are on the wrong insulin”!
        The FDA new there was a small amount of patients in the studies that had significant weight gain but did NOT require it be put in the literature.
        One had to actually look up the studies to find it mentioned in the side effects. Sorry their dumbass studies are not free of the influence of those paying for said studies. (Usually pharmaceutical companies)
        Do your own research before you agree to take anything. Then, if it’s a pharmaceutical, talk to your physician about what you find. I print the studies out for my doc to read. Then together we decide the risk vs benefits.

        • Ephraiyim said:

          “FDA doesn’t even require drug companies to list all side effects in literature.”

          Where do the FDA say that?

          • Ephraiyim

            I read both the patient insert and got a copy from my Dr. of the literature he received. On the physician one there was a footnote to the research but it did not say what it was about…only a reference to other side effects.
            One had to go to the actual research paper in a medical journal to get the total info.
            Since it was merely footnoted and not mentioned in the side effects one can conclude that the FDA had not required it.
            If they had it would have been listed.
            I don’t know the rules only the evidence before me.

          • What you’d really need to do is look at ALL the data provided to the FDA. Then you’d need to understand it.

  • tyb82

    Of course, and they are killing them off… Remember there is money in disease containment, not cures. Finding cures cannot be allowed.

    https://www.healthnutnews.com/recap-on-my-unintended-series-the-holistic-doctor-deaths/

    • Verna Lang

      You should take the nut part of Erin Elizabeth’s self description seriously. The paranoia is strong in that one.
      Did you read the updates in her list of “victims”? Heart attacks at 67 never happen? Suicide, murder by spouse, illegal drug overdose. The list goes on.
      Famlies paying a private investigator to prove someone is murdered instead of committing suicide? That isn’t proof. Don’t you see that the PIs may just delivering just enough doubt to satisfy the people who pay them?

      • tyb82

        Oh yes. I’ve spent hours researching the individual cases and it is shocking. It also led me down the rabbit hole of researchers killed or “suicided” in the past 5 years or so. Including flight Mh17.

        • robt

          That’s just crazy talk.
          But anyway, homeo is just as good as doing nothing, and a lot of ailments just cure themselves, given a little time.
          And we end up stronger!

    • Who are?

      • tyb82

        That is a great question. Big Pharma? Government? No clue but something isn’t right. How many medical researchers have died in the last 5 years or so? You’ll be shocked if you research. Who was on flight Mh17? Give yourself a few hours of research and you will see what I mean. Look into the individual cases on the link of dead holistic Dr’s.

  • There is no evidence of a homeo treatment curing any illness at any time. At some point you have to recognize flawed theories of medicine for what they are and move on. Homeo is for suckers.

    • Samarami

      Of course if one is well there is “…no evidence of (fill in this blank ___) curing any illness at any time…” A mute argument. Sam

      • Wrong. We have evidence that aspirin cures headaches, Pepto-Bismol cures upset stomach, antibiotics cure syphilis, and surgery cures coronary artery disease, the ill effects of brain tumors, and many forms of cancer.

        And the word for a dead-letter argument is “moot”. Look it up.

      • Gold

        “if one is well…”?

        This is a nonsense argument. Your strawman is too embarrassed to even show up.

  • Samarami

    As usual, the problem as I see it is not gettin’ sick or stayin’ well. The problem is in the definition of terms. “Homeopathy” doesn’t mean a whole lot to me. I’ve steadfastly steered clear of all medical establishment “cures” for over 65 years, and I’m the healthiest 83 year-old in my city. (I say that quietly, as don’t wish to raise the ire of other 83 year-olds who might just whip my butt :-[).

    I use lots of herbs and natural “remedies” at times, but mostly have no especial need, since I tend to stay well. I eat mostly raw, organic stuff. But some junk also. At times I get a hankerin’ for Burger Belch, etc.

    Somebody always has something to sell. If it’s offered by accepted, mainstream “providers” (with huge lobby budgets) it arrives with bangles and bells and acclamations. If not, denunciations and castigations.
    As Joe summarizes: “money tells the story”. Sam

    • Homeopathy isn’t herbal, it’s not natural and the best evidence says homeopathy products are not remedies either. And they are a multi billion dollar business. Follow the money.

  • Danny338

    Further proof that the FDA is nothing more than the pharmaceutical cartel’s enforcer.

    • Gold

      Well… That was an unconstructive comment with all of the value of a “Me too” from someone that didn’t read the article.

      • Danny338

        Well… I could make an (censored) of myself by assuming you haven’t read the article and denigrating your comment, but I won’t. I could try to connect the dots for you by quoting the article, such as..

        “For a long time, homeopathic medicines have not been subject to FDA approval. Now the FDA says homeopathic treatments must follow the same rules as typical drugs.”
        and
        “While this FDA rule does not itself affect herbal medicine and natural cures, it sets a dangerous precedent.”
        and
        “Small companies cannot afford clinical trials to get FDA approval. The regulation favors large established pharmaceutical companies, whether or not their products are safe.”
        and
        “The FDA ignores thousands of deaths every year from drugs they approved.”

        We could then discuss how almost all consumer protection laws were written by or for established and entrenched business interests and how those interests have used those laws to attack and reduce their competition. We might then talk about how the FDA has no authority to make rule changes that are legally binding. That it takes an act of Congress to change the law and how Congress lacks the authority to delegate it’s power to legislate. We could then get into the issue of the FDA, and consumer protection laws in general, being unconstitutional in and of itself. But …. in my honest opinion, based upon the comment you made, you don’t seem like a person who is worth discussing any of that with.

        • Danny338 said:

          “in my honest opinion, based upon the comment you made, you don’t seem like a person who is worth discussing any of that with.”

          It is a waste of time discussing something with someone who hasn’t a clue what they’re talking about, isn’t it?

          You said:

          “We might then talk about how the FDA has no authority to make rule changes that are legally binding.”

          Wrong. The FDA already has the legal powers to regulate homeopathy but have up till now chosen not to apply or enforce them, instead leaving consumers at the mercy of the homeopathy manufacturers, instead of protecting the public.

          • Gold

            Wrong. The FDA already has the legal powers to regulate homeopathy but have up till now chosen not to apply or enforce them, instead leaving consumers at the mercy of the homeopathy manufacturers, instead of protecting the public.

            In fairness to the FDA, they do have limited resources and until recently homeopathy was an insignificant nonsense. Now that it has become so large it needs attention.

        • Gold

          Yeah… None of that is “proof” for what you claimed. Your reply is still unconstructive.

          All you’ve managed to do is demonstrate that my assumption that you’d not read the article was incorrect. I’ll accept that and acknowledge the point.

          So, you have read the article, declared an unwarranted conclusion based on the information available in the article and still failed to provide anything constructive.

          I started a thread below asking for just that sort of comment. If you have something constructive to add, please jump in with it.

loading