Why Are Homeopathic Remedies Legal Again?

[Duckie]

At first I was amused when I saw homeopathic remedies pretending to be drugs by having similar packaging and telling stores to put them in the same isles as real medicine.

I looked at one, which was made of 0.85g Sucrose, 0.15g Lactose, and 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001g Duck Liver. It's meant to treat the flu. According to various google informations and wikipedia, the company earns 200 million dollars a year, and only uses 10 ducks and a less than a million grams of sugar to produce its medicine.

At first I was amused, because I did the math and I found out that the best way to express that measurement of active ingredient is '4 Inverse Universes'. As in, if replicator robots converted everything in this universe into homeopathic medicine including themselves, there is still a 75% chance the universe would be composed of 100% pure sugar to an atomic level of precision.

Then I realised- people die from the flu all the time. I've had to go to the hospital for that shit, and I almost didn't once and would have probably had to call for an emergency ambulence had I just taken some real pain reliever medicine and gone back to bed. How many people have died because they take magic duck liver pills (one of the 10 most popular medicines in europe and america!) that work on the principle of magic and don't get treated for ailments? How in the world is advertising flu symptom relief but giving only a placebo not illegal?

You can't just say "Consumers know they're buying something that doesn't work" because clearly they don't if people buy it and believe in it. People obviously (as is apparantly) cannot deal with logical fallacies and are ill-educated as to selecting medicines without scientific enforcement against snake oil (thus the FDA) because they have little ability to process things like placebo effect, spontaneous remission, and counting only successes. Isn't that a bit like advertising a childrens' toy with "swallow this, it's nutritious?" as a label, and then claiming it's not strictly illegal to do so because there's a loophole in the FDA's nutrition laws and federald manslaughter laws? Shouldn't that be outrageous and downright dickish?

How in the world is selling Homeopathic Remedies as a legitimate medicine not an imprisonable offense for hundreds of thousands of counts of neglegent homicide? Am I the only one who actually has considered this or are homeopathic companies using their massive profits (helped by impossibly low manufacturing costs) to lobby the government to keep neglegent homicide and medical malpractice of the highest order legal?

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- I guess I'm just curious why this gaping hole in the FDA that must undoubtedly cause at least a certain amount of deaths every year and at minimum unhealthy lifestyles and corporate fraud isn't closed, but yet the FDA is going after cheerios for the exact same thing.

[Starglider]

Personally I would like to see all homeopathic remedies required to carry huge high-contrast 'SCIENTIFIC TESTS HAVE SHOWN THIS PRODUCT TO HAVE NO MEDICAL BENEFITS' signs, taking up at least a third of the packaging, similar to the 'SMOKING CAUSES FATAL CANCER' signs we have on cigarette packets here. I would not make them illegal, because generally I think that if people want to be terminally stupid it's a waste of effort trying to stop them unless they harm others. That does imply though that we should be very harsh on parents who give their children homeopathic remedies instead of actual treatment, in exactly the same way that we should be very harsh on 'faith healers'.

[Duckie]

Personally I would like to see all homeopathic remedies required to carry huge high-contrast 'SCIENTIFIC TESTS HAVE SHOWN THIS PRODUCT TO HAVE NO MEDICAL BENEFITS' signs, taking up at least a third of the packaging, similar to the 'SMOKING CAUSES FATAL CANCER' signs we have on cigarette packets here. I would not make them illegal, because generally I think that if people want to be terminally stupid it's a waste of effort trying to stop them unless they harm others. That does imply though that we should be very harsh on parents who give their children homeopathic remedies instead of actual treatment, in exactly the same way that we should be very harsh on 'faith healers'.

That's true- it would seem a little draconian to ban it just because it doesn't work, and make Natural Medicine freaks and people who don't know any better alike just want them more. Personally I think anything above "Provides spiritual and mental comfort" should be prosecuteable as false advertising on a sugar pill, since "Works just like Placebo (R) Brand Medicine" or "Proven to Cure Cancer [as much as placeboes do]" is one of those 'technically true but misleading' things that are just as bad and should be regulated.

[Starglider]

Personally I think anything above "Provides spiritual and mental comfort" should be prosecuteable as false advertising on a sugar pill, since "Works just like Placebo (R) Brand Medicine" or "Proven to Cure Cancer [as much as placeboes do]" is one of those 'technically true but misleading' things that are just as bad and should be regulated.

Actually for sugar pills I would just require them to be placed in the confectionery section, next to the M&Ms and Hershey's bars. The cries of strangled indignation from the 'natural medicine' crowd would be priceless.

(admittedly this does not work for online ordering)

[Duckie]

Personally I think anything above "Provides spiritual and mental comfort" should be prosecuteable as false advertising on a sugar pill, since "Works just like Placebo (R) Brand Medicine" or "Proven to Cure Cancer [as much as placeboes do]" is one of those 'technically true but misleading' things that are just as bad and should be regulated.

Actually for sugar pills I would just require them to be placed in the confectionery section, next to the M&Ms and Hershey's bars. The cries of strangled indignation from the 'natural medicine' crowd would be priceless.

(admittedly this does not work for online ordering)

That's a problem in that most homeopathic medicines are sugar pills, so the whole warning label thing would be quite superfluous.

Incidentally, an interesting question is at what point does homeopathic medicine start being sugar pills instead of 'vaguely potential (if ineffectual) medicine' though? Only the most undiluted of homeopathic medicines actually has a molecule of active ingredient in the jar. Is 1-atom-in-4-universes density medicine just a sugar pill? What about those medicines where there's a statistical probability of about 1 in 10,000 of having a molecule of the substance (about the average for homeopathy)?

[Mr Bean]

Incidentally, an interesting question is at what point does homeopathic medicine start being sugar pills instead of 'vaguely potential (if ineffectual) medicine' though? Only the most undiluted of homeopathic medicines actually has a molecule of active ingredient in the jar. Is 1-atom-in-4-universes density medicine just a sugar pill? What about those medicines where there's a statistical probability of about 1 in 10,000 of having a molecule of the substance (about the average for homeopathy)?

When? at Avogadro's number = 6.0221415 × 10^23 power.

All homeopathic remedy's are pure magic water. If they follow Homeopathic principles
James Randi explains it best

[Simon_Jester]

You can't just say "Consumers know they're buying something that doesn't work" because clearly they don't if people buy it and believe in it. People obviously (as is apparantly) cannot deal with logical fallacies and are ill-educated as to selecting medicines without scientific enforcement against snake oil (thus the FDA) because they have little ability to process things like placebo effect, spontaneous remission, and counting only successes. Isn't that a bit like advertising a childrens' toy with "swallow this, it's nutritious?" as a label, and then claiming it's not strictly illegal to do so because there's a loophole in the FDA's nutrition laws and federald manslaughter laws? Shouldn't that be outrageous and downright dickish?

Well, it is outrageous and downright dickish. Personally, I think that homeopathic remedies should be shut down on the grounds that they don't do what they say they do (now demonstrable thanks to all those expensive studies we did on quack medicine!)

The basic problem is that homeopaths aren't as up-front about their basic operating principle as they ought to be. I've talked to users of homeopathic stuff who were shocked to learn that the two key laws of homeopathy were such bullshit as the "law of similarity" (to cure X, take something that gives you the same symptoms as X) and the practice of "succussion" (which is where they get all this crazy "dilute until no medicine remains" from).

The ones I met who had someone (me) actually sit down and explain the operating principles to them, tended to go "holy shit, that's stupid!" just as one might expect. This information is publically available, but most people are so accustomed to using tools and devices without stopping to ask how they work that they don't bother to go looking for it.
______

Unfortunately, homeopathy caught on in the first place because back in the early to mid-1800s when it was invented, it was honestly better than the medicine of the time. 'Conventional' doctors* hadn't gotten around to inventing "listen to the results of controlled studies" yet, and would often apply ridiculous treatments such as bloodletting or a nice hefty dose of arsenic. So hospitals full of normal doctors killed more of their patients than hospitals full of homeopaths. Not only were the homeopaths not actively feeding their patients poison, which helps, but they also made extensive use of 'natural' remedies such as fresh air and exercise.

Don't ask me why it survived into the modern age of doctors who don't embrace systematic stupidity, I don't know.

*insofar as conventions existed
________

Incidentally, an interesting question is at what point does homeopathic medicine start being sugar pills instead of 'vaguely potential (if ineffectual) medicine' though? Only the most undiluted of homeopathic medicines actually has a molecule of active ingredient in the jar. Is 1-atom-in-4-universes density medicine just a sugar pill? What about those medicines where there's a statistical probability of about 1 in 10,000 of having a molecule of the substance (about the average for homeopathy)?

Still sugar pills. The number of bottles with a molecule of the actual medicine is almost certainly exceeded by the number of bottles that are far more strongly contaminated by something else (say, six molecules of residue from a plastic container).

I'd say the dividing line occurs at around 6X/3C, at which point you've diluted to about one in a million. Very few useful medications remain useful at nanogram dosage levels.

[Lord of the Abyss]

How in the world is selling Homeopathic Remedies as a legitimate medicine not an imprisonable offense for hundreds of thousands of counts of neglegent homicide? Am I the only one who actually has considered this or are homeopathic companies using their massive profits (helped by impossibly low manufacturing costs) to lobby the government to keep neglegent homicide and medical malpractice of the highest order legal?

As I understand in America at least homeopathy was given a special status when the FDA was created because one of it's supporters was politically powerful at the time. And had the "Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia" declared medically valid Because He Said So, basically.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, at the time of its founding, the FDA was heavily preoccupied with medicines that were actually poisonous (the infamous "snake oil" comes to mind). While homeopathic drugs could not be proven to do any good, they also did not do any harm. Since medical science of the era wasn't all that advanced, there were a lot of diseases for which a placebo was as good as any legitimate medicine on the market, so the FDA had more important things to do than ban homeopathic drugs.

As to why they haven't been reconsidered in the US since the rise of real modern medicine, I truly don't know.

[Duckie]

Well, I was using the absurd examples of the 1 in 10,000 chance to have a molecule (high concentration for homeopathy) to present a question about when something can be legitimately still considered a substance that isn't pure water in terms of potentially needing FDA testing. More out of interest in what the lowest possible concentration concievable could be.

Personally, I'd draw the most extreme line at about 0.1 or 0.5 or 1 picogram for an adult human, based on taking the most extreme case possible in terms of dilute substances affecting people and identifying it. I believe even at that level Botulism won't kill or even affect you you [and a thimble full of botulism could apparantly kill every human on earth and thensome], and I don't think there's any substance on earth that will have a stronger effect on human health.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I was using the absurd examples of the 1 in 10,000 chance to have a molecule (high concentration for homeopathy) to present a question about when something can be legitimately still considered a substance that isn't pure water in terms of potentially needing FDA testing.

Well, even bottled water requires FDA testing, but not clinical testing.

I still like the idea above of requiring that homeopathic remedies be reclassified as confectionaries and bottled water.

[Broomstick]

Also, at the time of its founding, the FDA was heavily preoccupied with medicines that were actually poisonous (the infamous "snake oil" comes to mind). While homeopathic drugs could not be proven to do any good, they also did not do any harm. Since medical science of the era wasn't all that advanced, there were a lot of diseases for which a placebo was as good as any legitimate medicine on the market, so the FDA had more important things to do than ban homeopathic drugs.

As to why they haven't been reconsidered in the US since the rise of real modern medicine, I truly don't know.

Because they don't do any direct harm. Really, that's the reason. They aren't poisonous, they aren't toxic, and you can't OD on them. The pills/whatever themselves are harmless.

How they are used can be harmful, but then, people can kill themselves by drinking too much water in too short a period of time. The FDA is concerned with regulating actual medicinal things, and preventing non-medicinals from advertising as medicinals - which is about the only area you'll see them going after homeopathic remedies. As far as the FDA is concerned, if people want to blow their money on sugar pills they are free to do so.

[Vehrec]

Also, at the time of its founding, the FDA was heavily preoccupied with medicines that were actually poisonous (the infamous "snake oil" comes to mind). While homeopathic drugs could not be proven to do any good, they also did not do any harm. Since medical science of the era wasn't all that advanced, there were a lot of diseases for which a placebo was as good as any legitimate medicine on the market, so the FDA had more important things to do than ban homeopathic drugs.

As to why they haven't been reconsidered in the US since the rise of real modern medicine, I truly don't know.

Because they don't do any direct harm. Really, that's the reason. They aren't poisonous, they aren't toxic, and you can't OD on them. The pills/whatever themselves are harmless.

How they are used can be harmful, but then, people can kill themselves by drinking too much water in too short a period of time. The FDA is concerned with regulating actual medicinal things, and preventing non-medicinals from advertising as medicinals - which is about the only area you'll see them going after homeopathic remedies. As far as the FDA is concerned, if people want to blow their money on sugar pills they are free to do so.

It should still count as false advertising. Can we get them for that? If their products don't have the effects they claim, why can't we nail them for lieing to their customers?

[Darth Holbytlan]

The FDA doesn't regulate homeopathic remedies thanks to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, which hamstrung their ability to regulate "dietary supplements". I assume a homeopathic remedy qualifies as "a concentrate, metabolite, constituent or extract".

See also this commentary on the matter.

[Duckie]

Fun fact: Congressman Ron Paul thinks we haven't gone far enough with allowing false claims on medicinal products such as dietary supplements. He authored a "Freedom Act" which would allow companies to make unsupported or blatantly false medical claims on their packaging, because the free market needs that to function apparantly.

[Intio]

I think that in the UK the term 'Dietician' is legally protected, whereas the term 'Nutritionist' is not. I suspect that homeopaths try their best to cosy up to the nutritionist end of the spectrum in order to bypass any requirements for medical proof. I don't doubt their vague non-commital language could spin homeopathic remedies as nutritional supplements rather than medical cures. For the reasons given by Simon_Jester, most users won't bother discern between the two.

Most bullshitters look for the line of least legal resistance, then sculpt their rationale around that. You'd think this would be a huge warning light for punters.

[Mr Bean]

The UK has a different problem then the US since the Royal Family is a big believer in Magic Water and has been pushing Parliament on them for well over a hundred years. Which is why heath care in the UK will pay for magic water, and pay to have treated by the Wizards who produce said water.

They call themselves Homeopathic Doctors, but I prefer to think of them as Wizards since their disipline is based on pure magical thinking.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that in the UK the term 'Dietician' is legally protected, whereas the term 'Nutritionist' is not. I suspect that homeopaths try their best to cosy up to the nutritionist end of the spectrum in order to bypass any requirements for medical proof. I don't doubt their vague non-commital language could spin homeopathic remedies as nutritional supplements rather than medical cures. For the reasons given by Simon_Jester, most users won't bother discern between the two.

Yeah.

Part of it is a lack of general education in the difference between science and nonscience- though not as much as one might think, because even a random guy can tell that something is wrong with the idea of using caffeine pills as a homeopathic remedy for insomnia, or with the idea that diluting something by a factor of a million several times makes it stronger. The hole isn't necessarily in the consumer's knowledge, it's in the honesty with which homeopaths present their arguments.

Another part of the problem is the "shut up and listen to experts" vibe that a lot of the experts give off. When you yourself aren't an expert and get into the habit of shutting up and listening to them, your ability to tell truth from lies depends entirely on your ability to tell honest experts from fake ones. And some fakes are quite good at faking, or at casting doubt on their honest rivals.

Listening to experts when you're not willing and able to evaluate their expertise can backfire.

[Vendetta]

It's worse than that, just think how much water they'd have to use in order to produce their claimed concentration. It's more than the entire hydrosphere of the earth by several times, which, if their claims are correct, should mean that they are polluting the earth's hydrosphere with medically potentised water, any water you drink from anywhere ever must by definition be homeopathically bioactive, and therefore you should overdose instantly just by turning the tap on!

And if they only reuse the same water over and over, then they are feeding already potentised water back into the system and increasing it's potentisation every time, which means that their stated dosages must be inaccurate.

Something Must Be Done about these medical polluters, get some eco-loonies on the case, open warfare in Holland & Barrett!

[Dooey Jo]

They get their concentrations by repeatedly diluting it by a 1:100 ratio, so if they do it six times, they get a concentration of 1:100^6, but would only need to use six times as much water as they originally had.

Also, they must do the magic shaking for it to work, which is why the oceans are not homeopathic.

[Darth Wong]

Because they don't do any direct harm. Really, that's the reason. They aren't poisonous, they aren't toxic, and you can't OD on them. The pills/whatever themselves are harmless.

How they are used can be harmful, but then, people can kill themselves by drinking too much water in too short a period of time. The FDA is concerned with regulating actual medicinal things, and preventing non-medicinals from advertising as medicinals - which is about the only area you'll see them going after homeopathic remedies. As far as the FDA is concerned, if people want to blow their money on sugar pills they are free to do so.

It should still count as false advertising. Can we get them for that? If their products don't have the effects they claim, why can't we nail them for lieing to their customers?

It's spelled "lying", not "lieing". And they can get around that by simply saying "used in homeopathic medicine to treat X" on the label instead of "cures X". The former statement is absolutely, irrefutably true. The latter statement is not.

[Steel]

Because they don't do any direct harm. Really, that's the reason. They aren't poisonous, they aren't toxic, and you can't OD on them. The pills/whatever themselves are harmless.

How they are used can be harmful, but then, people can kill themselves by drinking too much water in too short a period of time. The FDA is concerned with regulating actual medicinal things, and preventing non-medicinals from advertising as medicinals - which is about the only area you'll see them going after homeopathic remedies. As far as the FDA is concerned, if people want to blow their money on sugar pills they are free to do so.

It should still count as false advertising. Can we get them for that? If their products don't have the effects they claim, why can't we nail them for lieing to their customers?

It's spelled "lying", not "lieing". And they can get around that by simply saying "used in homeopathic medicine to treat X" on the label instead of "cures X". The former statement is absolutely, irrefutably true. The latter statement is not.

However in the UK there was a case where some biscuits advertised themselves as "85% fat free" (as they were by mass 15% fat, compared to 25% for a pork scratching...). This sounded really healthy to morons, and they sold really well, however it was ruled that the statement was so misleading that advertising like that was banned.

[Darth Wong]

However in the UK there was a case where some biscuits advertised themselves as "85% fat free" (as they were by mass 15% fat, compared to 25% for a pork scratching...). This sounded really healthy to morons, and they sold really well, however it was ruled that the statement was so misleading that advertising like that was banned.

There is nothing misleading about the statement that a product "is used in homeopathic medicine to treat X". I suppose you could force them to say that homeopathic medicine is not considered scientific if you're concerned about it, but the statement itself is nonetheless true and not misleading at all.

Mind you, it would be funny if bottled-water companies started adding "can also be used as a homeopathic remedy" to their labels, since that would also be true. The infinitesimal trace of supposedly active ingredient in a genuine homeopathic remedy has zero scientific effect compared to none at all, so you could use any sample of purified water as a homeopathic remedy, with exactly the same results.

[Vendetta]

They get their concentrations by repeatedly diluting it by a 1:100 ratio, so if they do it six times, they get a concentration of 1:100^6, but would only need to use six times as much water as they originally had.

Except they actually do it 20 or 30 times. 30C dilutions are not uncommon in homeopathic remedies. (In the Randi video Bean posted, he shows 30X homeopathic sleeping pills. To produce those pills, starting with a single milligram of caffiene, you would have to use the earth's entire hydrosphere twenty five million times over.)