Homeopathy is everywhere!

Thai: Show me where any "allopathic" drugs have the same disclaimer as homeopathic remedies. The FDA doesn't endorse drugs, but drug companies cannot make false claims (unless they have the disclaimer).

Not only do they have disclaimers, they have big bold faced warning boxes with all kinds of disclaimers and advisories. Many conventional/allopathic drugs have pages and pages of them.
If you dont own a PDR, next time you are in the library, a bookstore (you can buy them) or the doctor's office take a look. The public generally doesn't see these but they are given to pharmacists and prescribing physicians and are published in the PDR. Next time you have an Rx filled, you can ask the pharmacist for the pkg insert for whatever it is you are getting. . My OTC Prilosec says if symptoms persist after 14 days or whatever, the drug isn't working, stop it and go see my doctor.
Almost every drug says this, aspirin and acetamnophen included.

If that's not a disclaimer I don't know what is. It says nothing about the FDA endorsing or not endorsing the product Simply doesn't mention it. The fact that my pharmacist sells Prilosec, aspirin and tylenol(tm) and homeopathic remedies OTC means that both are allowed to be sold by the FDA. The homeopathic remedy with its short disclaimer is far and away exceeded by the disclaimers and warnings on non-homeo products.
 
CFLarsen said:
T'ai Chi,
Show me one reference that isn't used in connection with homeopathy.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, allopathy is evolving to be a neutral word, especially with the public, that simply means 'MD'.

http://www.ocs.fas.harvard.edu/resources/health/medhealthcareersallopathic.htm

http://www.flahec.org/hlthcareers/A...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12365576&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12622353&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12099948&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11645895&dopt=Abstract
 

Jacobs asks if there is a positive effect in a dog or a young child who does not understand they are being treated with something for their problem ... the fact that they are not given a pep talk: such as:

"We are giving you something for your allergic rash, your diarrhea or your ear infection which will make it better.........."

A dog or an infant with a rash, diarrahea or a fever cannot comprehend that they are being given something to make them better. Because they cannot understand this advisory .. and then they get better on placebo as well as the homepathic remedy, Jacobs asks how do we know if its the placebo effect or not?

Ideas? Comments?

Yea, it's BS.
 

The homeopathic remedy with its short disclaimer is far and away exceeded by the disclaimers and warnings on non-homeo products.

Disclaimers of side-effects are what they have. Do they have the disclaimer regarding the efficacy of the drug that homeopathic remedies do?

Homeopathic remedies don't work. Prove me wrong. Bring some to the JREF and claim your million.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Try: allopathic keratoplasty.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Steve. I thought you had me on ignore. I wonder when that stopped...if it ever was in effect...

Let's see: The only Google-hit in English is from books.md (I can find it too, Steve): Keratoplasty is a "(c)orneal transplant with donor material of glass, plastic, or other inert material."

So far, so good. Problem is that nowhere else is "allopathic" mentioned, even when we look at other forms of transplants. Why would that be? Why only this one? If "allopathic" was used by any non-homeopaths, why wouldn't we see it more often?

This was most likely a clerical error. Try again, Steve.

Ta'i Chi said:
Like it or not, allopathy is evolving to be a neutral word, especially with the public, that simply means 'MD'.
Click to expand...

Oh, that makes it true, then. :rolleyes:
 
thai: Disclaimers of side-effects are what they have. Do they have the disclaimer regarding the efficacy of the drug that homeopathic remedies do?

The disclaimers on homeopathic medications do not address efficacy. They address the fact that they have not been evaluated by the FDA for this purpose. The disclaimers on non-homeo drugs include warnings, side-effects, drug interactions as well as instances where they do not work. Example: if you do not have relief in x days, stop taking this and consult your doctor. So yes,
non-homeo drugs have disclaimers concerning efficacy as well.
In fact under indications and contra indications they have precisely that disclaimer.
 
CFLarsen said:

Thank you, Steve. I thought you had me on ignore. I wonder when that stopped...if it ever was in effect...
Click to expand...


Who cares. Thai and I have ignored each other about 6 times now.


Oh, that makes it true, then.
Click to expand...

Yes, the fact that the word as evolved certainly does make it true, I agree.
 
thaiboxerken said:

Homeopathic remedies don't work. Prove me wrong. Bring some to the JREF and claim your million.
Click to expand...

Was Steve ever making that claim, or saying he or anyone else has desires of participating in a JREF test?

He, from what I can tell, was simply sharing impartial information about homeopathy.
 
The disclaimers on homeopathic medications do not address efficacy. They address the fact that they have not been evaluated by the FDA for this purpose.

Why do homeopathic meds have this disclaimer but others don't?

The disclaimers on non-homeo drugs include warnings, side-effects, drug interactions as well as instances where they do not work. Example: if you do not have relief in x days, stop taking this and consult your doctor. So yes,
non-homeo drugs have disclaimers concerning efficacy as well.

That's not even close to the same thing and you know it. Why are you such a dishonest person? Do you really feel the need to misrepresent data to justify your beliefs? The disclaimer that homeopathic "drugs" have are not the same as the ones that real medicines have.



In fact under indications and contra indications they have precisely that disclaimer.

BS.
 


Was Steve ever making that claim, or saying he or anyone else has desires of participating in a JREF test?

He, from what I can tell, was simply sharing impartial information about homeopathy.

Bull! Just like you, he is defending homeopathy while not stating that he believes in it. You both are dishonest trolls.
 
The Mission of the FDA:
"FDA's Mission Statement
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."

All they say with regard to homeopathy is that it won't kill you. These "drugs" are not tested for efficacy as every other Dr. prescribed drug is. My point is that they (the homeopaths) do not puch for testing to get approval by the FDA for reasons that are obvious. If they were tested and passed, it would prove that they work. They are afraid of testing which is why it does not happen. If it worked they would have the FDA imprimatur, why would they not want that? Sniff test....BS.
 
Ed quotes FDA mission statements and includes:---

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply.................
Click to expand...

Well then guys, if they allow homeopathic drugs to be sold and/or prescribed, and if we are to take their mission statement at its word (see bold-faced item above), we have a bit of a dilemma on our hands don't we.. if we accept the assertion of Thai et al that these products have no proven efficacy....perhaps its because the FDA does not trash positive studies in favor of negative ones.
Maybe they are for entertainment only.

Twice since the 1980s, most recently in 1994, there have been petitions signed by a hundred scientists demanding the FDA to ban the sale and prescription of homepathic drugs and in both instances the argument was considered and the FDA decided
not to ban them.
 
From the FDA site:

FDA Regulation

In 1938, Sen. Royal Copeland of New York, the chief sponsor of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and a homeopathic physician, wrote into the law a recognition of any product listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. The Homeopathic Pharmacopeia includes a compilation of standards for source, composition and preparation of homeopathic drugs.

FDA regulates homeopathic drugs in several significantly different ways from other drugs. Manufacturers of homeopathic drugs are deferred from submitting new drug applications to FDA. Their products are exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating and from finished product testing for identity and strength. Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosage form must have an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and indicates that the drug is homeopathic. The imprint on conventional products, unless specifically exempt, must identify the active ingredient and dosage strength as well as the manufacturer.

"The reasoning behind [the difference] is that homeopathic products contain little or no active ingredients," explains Edward Miracco, a consumer safety officer with FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "From a toxicity, poison-control standpoint, [the active ingredient and strength] was deemed to be unnecessary."

My take is that a woo-woo put the fix in some time ago and now this junk is grandfathered in some obscure way. I suspect that homeopathic lobbyests are in there some where. Is the a homeo lobby? Bet there is. I also bet that they would be against any testing and bringing homeo products up to the level of acceptance as real drugs. The FDA is clearly not doing there job here.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Ed quotes FDA mission statements and includes:---

Well then guys, if they allow homeopathic drugs to be sold and/or prescribed, and if we are to take their mission statement at its word (see bold-faced item above), we have a bit of a dilemma on our hands don't we.. if we accept the assertion of Thai et al that these products have no proven efficacy....perhaps its because the FDA does not trash positive studies in favor of negative ones.
Maybe they are for entertainment only.

Twice since the 1980s, most recently in 1994, there have been petitions signed by a hundred scientists demanding the FDA to ban the sale and prescription of homepathic drugs and in both instances the argument was considered and the FDA decided
not to ban them.
Click to expand...
Efficacy and safety is not proven by the FDA's failure to enforce the law.

Homeopathic preparations have benefited unfairly from a kind of "grandfather clause" permissiveness. If manufacturers of homeopathic preparations were forced to comply with FDA regulations as do manufacturers of genuine drugs, I'd be satisfied that homeopathic preparations were being given proper scrutiny. If they were, homeopathy would die immediately, as well it should, like other snake oil nostrums.

Lack of action by the FDA is no proof that homeopathic preparations are at all effective or safe. It is proof that the FDA is ignoring something that falls within its responsibility to regulate.
 
"Lack of action by the FDA is no proof that homeopathic preparations are at all effective or safe. It is proof that the FDA is ignoring something that falls within its responsibility to regulate."

Indeed. Then we can dismiss Ed's assertion and sniff test relying (see his original post) on the FDA.
 
SteveGrenard said:
The homeopathic remedy with its short disclaimer is far and away exceeded by the disclaimers and warnings on non-homeo products.
Click to expand...
Your comparison is invalid. Homeopathic preparations have not been subjected to the same exhaustive scrutiny that genuine medications have been subjected to. Homeopathic manufacturers get away with it because they don't have to comply with the same FDA drug approval process that legitimate manufacturers must follow.

If homeopathic preparations are claimed to have effects on the human body, then they should be subject to the same laws and procedures as any other medication. Perhaps then we'd see labeling such as, "This preparation has been shown to have no genuine effect on any illness. To be taken for entertainment purposes only."
 
SteveGrenard said:
"Lack of action by the FDA is no proof that homeopathic preparations are at all effective or safe. It is proof that the FDA is ignoring something that falls within its responsibility to regulate."

Indeed. Then we can dismiss Ed's assertion and sniff test relying (see his original post) on the FDA.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. If the homeos have the real deal they would insist on not being treated like second class citizens. Sniff test.
 
SteveGrenard said:
"Lack of action by the FDA is no proof that homeopathic preparations are at all effective or safe. It is proof that the FDA is ignoring something that falls within its responsibility to regulate."

Indeed. Then we can dismiss Ed's assertion and sniff test relying (see his original post) on the FDA.
Click to expand...
The FDA recognizes that homeopathic preparations have no medically active ingredients. Thus, the FDA has established that they are impotent treatments. However, homeopathy claims that such preparations can and do have effects on the human body. The FDA is required to regulate all such products.

Should the FDA regulate homeopathic "medications" or not?
 
Pyrrho said:

The FDA recognizes that homeopathic preparations have no medically active ingredients. Thus, the FDA has established that they are impotent treatments. However, homeopathy claims that such preparations can and do have effects on the human body. The FDA is required to regulate all such products.

Should the FDA regulate homeopathic "medications" or not?
Click to expand...

Ab-so-lute-ly

If it is ever suggested, watch the lobby scream. Anyone doubt that they would?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom