Homeopathic mosquito repellent

[Eos of the Eons]

No studies. Homeopaths don't science.

In summary, there appears to be no scientific evidence to support Mozi-Q . The focus of the video on Delphinium appears to be a marketing strategy to try to present a plausible explanation for its inclusion in the remedy. But since there is no plausible way that sugar pills homeopathy can work, there is no possible way that Mozi-Q will prevent mosquitos, ticks, sand flies, no-see-ums, black flies, head lice and bedbugs from being attracted to you. For that, you need to stick with what the evidence shows to be effective.

http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpre...-q-insect-repellent-you-eat-but-does-it-work/

 

[jt512]

In the US at least Woo Slingers like the Homeopaths have become absolute masters at talking all around what their product does. They've learned they can usually stay safe by wording their claims so vaguely as to be impossible to disprove such as "Our product will make you feel energetic-ified!" or some other such nice sounding but empty nonsense or by slapping some microscopic ass covering "This product has not be proven by the FDA to do diddly squat" notice.

That is not true about homeopathy. The truth is quite the opposite. In the US, homeopathic remedies are required by law to make a specific health claim and state it on the label. The required label for a homeopathic remedy is nearly identical to that required on ordinary over-the-counter drugs.

 

[George 152]

If the honeopathetic anti mosquito moistness is delivered by firehose I see no reason as to why it wouldn't work

 

[EHocking]

That is not true about homeopathy. The truth is quite the opposite. In the US, homeopathic remedies are required by law to make a specific health claim and state it on the label. The required label for a homeopathic remedy is nearly identical to that required on ordinary over-the-counter drugs.

I believe you are over stating the case for truthful and complete homeopathetic remedy labelling in the US.

I've just scanned what I believe is the relevant FDA policy, and I cannot find anywhere in the guidelines that requires any drug, real or homeopathetic, to make a specific health claim on the label.

The closest the labelling policy gets is to describe indications for use. To wit :

Indications for Use: The labeling for those products offered for OTC retail sale must bear at least one major OTC indication for use, stated in terms likely to be understood by lay persons...
​

 

[jt512]

I've just scanned what I believe is the relevant FDA policy, and I cannot find anywhere in the guidelines that requires any drug, real or homeopathetic, to make a specific health claim on the label.

The closest the labelling policy gets is to describe indications for use. To wit :

Indications for Use: The labeling for those products offered for OTC retail sale must bear at least one major OTC indication for use, stated in terms likely to be understood by lay persons...
​

That's exactly it. The "indications for use" is a claim about what the product does. For example, the "Indications for use" statement on the label of the homeopathic "drug" oscillococcinum is "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever." Similarly, the "Indications" statement for the homeopathic drug "calms forté" is "Temporary symptomatic relief of simple nervous tension and sleeplessness." Clearly, these are health claims.

Ordinary OTC drug labels contain a similar statement. Kroger decongestant tablets' (phenylephrine HCl, 10 mg) label has a "Uses" statement that begins, "Temporarily relieves nasal congestion due to the common cold...." Evidently, whether called "Indications for use," "Indications," or "Uses," both ordinary and homeopathic OTC drug labels in the U.S. contain a statement, apparently mandated, of the product's purpose—what the product supposedly does.

 

[bruto]

That's exactly it. The "indications for use" is a claim about what the product does. For example, the "Indications for use" statement on the label of the homeopathic "drug" oscillococcinum is "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever." Similarly, the "Indications" statement for the homeopathic drug "calms forté" is "Temporary symptomatic relief of simple nervous tension and sleeplessness." Clearly, these are health claims.

Ordinary OTC drug labels contain a similar statement. Kroger decongestant tablets' (phenylephrine HCl, 10 mg) label has a "Uses" statement that begins, "Temporarily relieves nasal congestion due to the common cold...." Evidently, whether called "Indications for use," "Indications," or "Uses," both ordinary and homeopathic OTC drug labels in the U.S. contain a statement, apparently mandated, of the product's purpose—what the product supposedly does.

I note that in all your cases, the word "temporary" is prominent. Is this a catch-all, such that ineffectiveness is covered by the possibility that the moment of effectiveness is too brief to notice?

It should be noted that homeopathic drugs enjoy a special status in United States law, and are subject to a different legal procedure than "allopathic" drugs. There are actually three sets of laws, for conventional drugs, dietary supplements, and homeopathic drugs. As far as I can see, the special law for homeopathic medicines essentially exempts them from the need to demonstrate effectiveness.

e.t.a. it does seem that the FDA cracked down some time ago on homeopathic medicines' claims to cure anything, and the general claim of temporary symptom relief is probably a dodge for that.

 

[EHocking]

That's exactly it. The "indications for use" is a claim about what the product does. For example, the "Indications for use" statement on the label of the homeopathic "drug" oscillococcinum is "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever." Similarly, the "Indications" statement for the homeopathic drug "calms forté" is "Temporary symptomatic relief of simple nervous tension and sleeplessness." Clearly, these are health claims.

What bruto said.

This is just spin - as indicated in your next statement:

Ordinary OTC drug labels contain a similar statement. Kroger decongestant tablets' (phenylephrine HCl, 10 mg) label has a "Uses" statement that begins, "Temporarily relieves nasal congestion due to the common cold...." Evidently, whether called "Indications for use," "Indications," or "Uses," both ordinary and homeopathic OTC drug labels in the U.S. contain a statement, apparently mandated, of the product's purpose—what the product supposedly does.

As I said, you are over stating the case for labelling on homeopathetic "remedies".

Nowhere in the FDA compliance policy is there any mention of "specific health claims". Spinning "indications of use" to mean "cures" is merely a transparent attempt to use FDA labelling to legitimise homeopathetic claims of health benefits of the "remedy".

From the the FDA's Drug Development and Review Definitions;

Indications and Usage
Description of use of drug in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a recognized disease or condition.
​

Note that there is no mention of efficacy, merely the reason that you might want to use the "remedy" for. Try any medical dictionary for the definition - none of them mention efficacy and to try to imply that it does is a misrepresentation (and if done on the label, dishonest). The section for supportive information on efficacy of a drug would be in the Clinical Studies section - which is just not going to happen for homeopathetic "remedies". In fact the FDA is quite emphatic on the subject:

There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.
Homeopathic remedies are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, FDA does not evaluate the remedies for safety or effectiveness.
​

Now, to get specific, here is the entry on "Drug products containing active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for oral use as insect repellents" under the Code of Federal Regulations.

Labeling claims for OTC orally administered insect repellent drug products are either false, misleading, or unsupported by scientific data. The following claims are examples of some that have been made for orally administered OTC insect repellent drug products: “Oral mosquito repellent,” “mosquitos avoid you,” “bugs stay away,” “keep mosquitos away for 12 to 24 hours,” and “the newest way to fight mosquitos.” Therefore, any drug product containing ingredients offered for oral use as an insect repellent cannot be generally recognized as safe and effective.
​

 

[jt512]

The "indications for use" is a claim about what the product does. For example, the "Indications for use" statement on the label of the homeopathic "drug" oscillococcinum is "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever." Similarly, the "Indications" statement for the homeopathic drug "calms forté" is "Temporary symptomatic relief of simple nervous tension and sleeplessness." Clearly, these are health claims.

Ordinary OTC drug labels contain a similar statement. Kroger decongestant tablets' (phenylephrine HCl, 10 mg) label has a "Uses" statement that begins, "Temporarily relieves nasal congestion due to the common cold...." Evidently, whether called "Indications for use," "Indications," or "Uses," both ordinary and homeopathic OTC drug labels in the U.S. contain a statement, apparently mandated, of the product's purpose—what the product supposedly does.

Nowhere in the FDA compliance policy is there any mention of "specific health claims". Spinning "indications of use" to mean "cures" is merely a transparent attempt to use FDA labelling to legitimise homeopathetic claims of health benefits of the "remedy".

But both homeopathic and ordinary drugs use that statement the same way: they make a claim about what the drug does. Oscillococcinum: "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever." Kroger decongestant (phenylephrine HCl, 10 mg): "Temporarily relieves nasal congestion due to the common cold...."

Both statements are clear claims for what the product supposedly does.

Indications and Usage
Description of use of drug in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a recognized disease or condition.
​

Note that there is no mention of efficacy, merely the reason that you might want to use the "remedy" for.

I have no idea why you think that is important. Both homeopathic and ordinary drug labels are using the use and indication statement to make a claim about what the product supposedly does, apparently with the blessing of U.S. law. Oscillococcium (supposedly) "temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms," just as Kroger's store-brand decongestant "temporarily relieves nasal congestion." In each case, the statement is about what the product supposedly does.

 

[EHocking]

...I have no idea why you think that is important.

Because you are attempting to spin homeopathetic "remedies" as actual medicine, merely because the FDA uses similar labelling guidlines for both.

Both homeopathic and ordinary drug labels are using the use and indication statement to make a claim about what the product supposedly does, apparently with the blessing of U.S. law....

There you go again. Pretending that FDA labelling laws legitimise the efficacy of homeopathetic "remedies".

The blessing of U.S. law is obviously NOT extended to the homeopathetic "remedies". As I quoted before;

• There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.
• Homeopathic remedies are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, FDA does not evaluate the remedies for safety or effectiveness.

 

[jt512]

Because you are attempting to spin homeopathetic "remedies" as actual medicine, merely because the FDA uses similar labelling guidlines for both.There you go again. Pretending that FDA labelling laws legitimise the efficacy of homeopathetic "remedies".

Even by Internet standards your reading comprehension is pathetic. Try going back to the beginning of this thread and reading what I actually wrote, rather than what you have imagined I wrote.

 

[bruto]

I think, apart from the unfortunate fact that homeopathic medicine has enough lobbying power to keep the FDA from being truly honest, the kicker is in the word "treatment." That is a pretty loose term. You can treat smallpox by putting a bag over your head.

 

[EHocking]

Even by Internet standards your reading comprehension is pathetic.

Ad hom so early in the discussion?

Try going back to the beginning of this thread and reading what I actually wrote, rather than what you have imagined I wrote.

I'm well aware of what you wrote,

"In the US, homeopathic remedies are required by law to make a specific health claim and state it on the label."
​

I'm merely demonstrating, with cites from the US body that oversees such, that the statement is incorrect, and that the premise that homeopathetic "remedies" should be treated as legitimately as actual medicine is merely homeopathetic industry spin. Much like the argument declaring that since insurance policies include certain sCAM "therapies", legitimises them as actual medical treatment.

Your resorting to name calling demonstrates that you cannot counter any of these arguments with facts.

 

[jt512]

Ad hom so early in the discussion?I'm well aware of what you wrote,

"In the US, homeopathic remedies are required by law to make a specific health claim and state it on the label."
​

I'm merely demonstrating, with cites from the US body that oversees such, that the statement is incorrect, and that the premise that homeopathetic "remedies" should be treated as legitimately as actual medicine is merely homeopathetic industry spin. Much like the argument declaring that since insurance policies include certain sCAM "therapies", legitimises them as actual medical treatment.

OK. By the letter of the law, both ordinary and homeopathic drugs are required to state at least one indication for use on the label. What I showed with the only 3 examples I could find offhand is that, with this statement, both ordinary and homeopathic drugs make a specific claim about the health effect of their product. The FDA, apparently, believes these are statements comply with the requirements of an indication of use statement.

I have no idea why you interpret this as me trying to legitimize homeopathy. Well, actually, I do: rather than carefully reading what I wrote, you've jumped to conclusions...and makde a fool of yourself in the process to anyone who has bothered to read more carefully that you have.

Your resorting to name calling demonstrates that you cannot counter any of these arguments with facts.

I haven't called you any names. I've accused you of failing in your reading comprehension, and that this is obvious to any thoughtful reader.

But, please, carry on. This is the most entertainment I've had all day. Of course I spent all day on an airplane in a middle seat in economy class.

 

[ehcks]

That's exactly it. The "indications for use" is a claim about what the product does. For example, the "Indications for use" statement on the label of the homeopathic "drug" oscillococcinum is "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever." Similarly, the "Indications" statement for the homeopathic drug "calms forté" is "Temporary symptomatic relief of simple nervous tension and sleeplessness." Clearly, these are health claims.

Ordinary OTC drug labels contain a similar statement. Kroger decongestant tablets' (phenylephrine HCl, 10 mg) label has a "Uses" statement that begins, "Temporarily relieves nasal congestion due to the common cold...." Evidently, whether called "Indications for use," "Indications," or "Uses," both ordinary and homeopathic OTC drug labels in the U.S. contain a statement, apparently mandated, of the product's purpose—what the product supposedly does.

It doesn't matter what the package says. What matters is what clinical studies say. Every study on homeopathic anything ever has said they have no greater effect than placebo.

So what we have isn't just a claim. It's a false claim; a lie. A lie they get away with US laws are weird and often stupid.

 

[EHocking]

OK. By the letter of the law, both ordinary and homeopathic drugs are required to state at least one indication for use on the label. What I showed with the only 3 examples I could find offhand is that, with this statement, both ordinary and homeopathic drugs make a specific claim about the health effect of their product.

This is the sticking point.

An indication of use is not a health claim about the product.
You need to acquaint yourself with the medical use of the word indication - since this is the context that the FDA is applying it.

Here's their definition again,

Indications and Usage
Description of use of drug in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a recognized disease or condition.
​

Here is their definition of Health Claims.

Health claims describe a relationship between a food substance (a food, food component, or dietary supplement ingredient), and reduced risk of a disease or health-related condition.
​

As far as the FDA is concerned - health claims only relate to FOOD labelling.
Nothing to do with OTC drug labelling and not equivalent to "indication of use".

Claiming that health claims = indications of use is a misrepresentation of facts.

 

[bruto]

JT512, while it may be true that others have read into your statements what is not there, one thing that seems not to be there at all is a clear statement of what you do think of homeopathy. Rather than getting the wind up about others' reading, you could, I think, simply make a statement to clarify.

In any case, what some people are trying to point out is that although both homeopathic and non homeopathic drugs both must state an "indication for use," it does not mean that the indications are similar, because the requirements of the law differ substantially. Homeopathic drugs do require an indication for use, but they do not require an actual claim or actual evidence of a health effect. The different types of drugs may share a common vocabulary, but they do not share the law, and because of this, the words mean different things.

 

[jt512]

This is the sticking point.

An indication of use is not a health claim about the product.
You need to acquaint yourself with the medical use of the word indication - since this is the context that the FDA is applying it.

No. I have, from the start been arguing against this statement by JoeBentley: "In the US at least Woo Slingers like the Homeopaths have become absolute masters at talking all around what their product does. They've learned they can usually stay safe by wording their claims so vaguely as to be impossible to disprove such as "Our product will make you feel energetic-ified!" or some other such nice sounding but empty nonsense or by slapping some microscopic ass covering "This product has not be proven by the FDA to do diddly squat" notice. "

He claims that homeopaths make vague claims about their products and then couch them with the disclaimer that the FDA has not reviewed the claim. What I said is that is wrong. Homeoathics put specific health claims on their products and do not print the FDA disclaimer that supplement manufacturers do.

As far as the FDA is concerned - health claims only relate to FOOD labelling.
Nothing to do with OTC drug labelling and not equivalent to "indication of use".

Exactly. So stop applying that definition to homeopathic drugs.

How the FDA defines a health claim has nothing to do with my point. Regardless of the legal definition, homeopathic products contain plain English health claims on their labels in the indication and use statement, just as non-homeopathic OTC do, apparently with the blessing, if not the mandate, of the FDA. "Temporarily reduces flu-like symptoms such as feeling run-down, headaches, body aches, chills and fever" is plainly a claim about what the product does. The drug (it is asserted) reduces flu-like symptoms. This claim is nearly identical to the one made for ordinary medications intended for the same purpose.

 

[jt512]

JT512, while it may be true that others have read into your statements what is not there, one thing that seems not to be there at all is a clear statement of what you do think of homeopathy. Rather than getting the wind up about others' reading, you could, I think, simply make a statement to clarify.

Why, so they can agree with me for the wrong reasons? When you don't let people know where you stand, they have to actually evaluate your statements.

In any case, what some people are trying to point out is that although both homeopathic and non homeopathic drugs both must state an "indication for use," it does not mean that the indications are similar, because the requirements of the law differ substantially. Homeopathic drugs do require an indication for use, but they do not require an actual claim or actual evidence of a health effect. The different types of drugs may share a common vocabulary, but they do not share the law, and because of this, the words mean different things.[/QUOTE]


The labeling requirements for OTC drugs are functionally identical for homeopathic and non-homeopathic drugs. The difference is that non-homeopathic drugs are subject to review and approval by the FDA, whereas homeopaths are basically allowed to approve their own drugs by using lower evidential standards.

 

[bruto]

Why, so they can agree with me for the wrong reasons? When you don't let people know where you stand, they have to actually evaluate your statements.

In any case, what some people are trying to point out is that although both homeopathic and non homeopathic drugs both must state an "indication for use," it does not mean that the indications are similar, because the requirements of the law differ substantially. Homeopathic drugs do require an indication for use, but they do not require an actual claim or actual evidence of a health effect. The different types of drugs may share a common vocabulary, but they do not share the law, and because of this, the words mean different things.

The labeling requirements for OTC drugs are functionally identical for homeopathic and non-homeopathic drugs. The difference is that non-homeopathic drugs are subject to review and approval by the FDA, whereas homeopaths are basically allowed to approve their own drugs by using lower evidential standards.[/QUOTE]

Ii disagree. They're worded the same, but because one requires testing for efficacy and one does not, it is not functionally identical at all. That's like saying Genesis and the Big Bang theory are functionally identical because they both say how the world began.

 

[jt512]

The labeling requirements for OTC drugs are functionally identical for homeopathic and non-homeopathic drugs. The difference is that non-homeopathic drugs are subject to review and approval by the FDA, whereas homeopaths are basically allowed to approve their own drugs by using lower evidential standards.

Ii disagree. They're worded the same, but because one requires testing for efficacy and one does not, it is not functionally identical at all. That's like saying Genesis and the Big Bang theory are functionally identical because they both say how the world began.

"Labeling requirements" means what is required to go on the label. The same things go on the label, whether the drug is homeopathic or not.