Retail pharmacies have a sugar pill problem. Homeopathic “remedies” may look like conventional medicine when they’re stocked on pharmacy shelves, like the photo above. But unlike conventional medicine, homeopathic products don’t contain any “medicine” at all. They are effectively sugar pills – placebos. Not surprisingly, there is convincing evidence to show that homeopathy is useless as a medical treatment, and fundamentally incompatible with a scientific understanding of medicine, biochemistry and even physics. Questions have been raised about the ethics of selling homeopathy in pharmacies to consumers who may not realize what they’re buying. This growing practice is attracting sharp criticism from other health professions. So why do pharmacies sell them? And what will it take for pharmacies to change? (more…)
Archive for Homeopathy
The BMJ is a prestigious medical journal, which just goes to show that prestigious journals can sometimes make awful decisions. They recently published a pro vs con article on homeopathy. Peter Fisher dragged out the current repertoire of pro-homeopathy tropes, while Edzard Ernst did a fine job of summarizing why homeopathy is nonsense.
I also think the article is an excellent example of the difference between evidence-based medicine and science-based medicine. While EBM is led by a misguided notion of “scientific equipoise” or fairness, SBM endeavors to use all scientific knowledge to make the best judgments we can about treatments.
An SBM approach to homeopathy leads only to scathing condemnation, because it is among the purest of pseudosciences. (more…)
On April 21 and 22, the FDA held a public hearing:
to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. . . . FDA is seeking participants for the public hearing and written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry.
The FTC recently announced that it, too, is wading into the homeopathic waters. The FTC, which regulates advertising of homeopathic products, will hold a public workshop on September 21 in Washington, DC, “to examine advertising for over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic products.” Like the FDA, it will also accept public comments online.
All of this regulatory buzz caused the FDA Law Blog to take notice. (The blog is hosted by a law firm specializing in food and drug regulation law.) A post titled “Will FTC Kill Homeopathic Products – or Will FDA?” gave this assessment:
Bottom line, if the FTC holds homeopathic products to the same scientific standards that are applied to claims for other OTC products like dietary supplements, as the FTC appears inclined to do . . . few if any homeopathic products will pass the test.
Naturopathy is chock-full of quackery. No doubt about it. Here at SBM and elsewhere, the seemingly limitless nonsense that can be incorporated into naturopathic practice has been documented time and again: detoxification, food “sensitivities,” anti-vaccination ideology, fake diseases (chronic yeast overgrowth, adrenal fatigue, chronic Lyme disease), bogus tests (also here), homeopathy, chelation therapy, assorted other odd-ball treatments, lack of ethical standards, and just general wackiness.
So, let’s give naturopaths licenses to practice primary care! What a good idea.
This affinity for nonsense is perfectly understandable, given their pseudoscience-filled education and foundation in vitalism. Once the scientific method is chucked in favor of “philosophy,” what’s to stop them from simply making things up? As far as I can tell, nothing. But why inflict this on the public under the guise of promoting health, safety and welfare?
To be fair, naturopaths aren’t the only ones who incorporate quackery into their practices. There are chiropractors, acupuncturists, reiki masters, doctors of Oriental Medicine, and “integrative medicine” practitioners. But what sets naturopaths apart, in my mind, is the sheer range of pseudoscience they will accommodate without the slightest hint of doubt in its efficacy or safety and their unwavering belief in their ability to diagnose and treat patients with the expertise and skill of medical doctors. “Delusional” is not too strong a word to describe their utter lack of awareness of their ignorance or the danger to patients they may pose. (more…)
Those of you who read my not-so-super-secret other blog (or who follow the news) familiar with this, but I feel that what happened over the last couple of weeks with respect to a man to whom I like to refer as “America’s Quack” is worth posting right here, in modified form.
Last week, a group of ten doctors led by Dr. Henry Miller, most of whom were affiliated either with the Hoover Institution or the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)—or both—wrote a letter to Lee Goldman, MD, the Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine at Columbia University complaining that Dr. Mehmet Oz shouldn’t be faculty at Columbia University because of his “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops” and “an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.” The letter produced a fair amount of media attention a week ago. I originally mildly approved of it, but over the course of a few days after the letter was released, my opinion on it soured. The reasons were several and included a profound distaste for threatening letters sent to a person’s employers, admittedly based in part on my own experiences having been at the receiving end of such intimidation tactics, as well as a concern that the letter had been written with no clear purpose behind it other than as a publicity stunt to embarrass Dr. Oz and Columbia. When I learned that Dr. Oz was planning to answer the letter on his show this week, there were predictions that this particularly bone-headed publicity stunt would backfire spectacularly. And it did.
Dr. David Katz is undoubtedly a heavy hitter in the brave new world of “integrative medicine,” a specialty that seeks to “integrate” pseudoscience with science, nonsense, with sense, and quackery with real medicine. In fairness, that’s not the way physicians like Dr. Katz see it. Rather, they see it as “integrating” the “best of both worlds” to the benefit of patients. However, as we’ve documented extensively here, on our personal blogs, and even in the biomedical literature (plug, plug), what “integrative” medicine means in practice is indeed what I characterized, the infiltration of woo into medicine. This infiltration seems to have started mainly in academia—hence the term “quackademic medicine” and “quackademia”—with the steady infiltration of nonsense into medical schools and academic medical centers, but has since metastasized to the world of community hospitals. This “integration” (or, as I like to refer to it, “infiltration”) has become so pronounced that a few years ago The Atlantic published an article entitled “The Triumph of New Age Medicine“, and just last December the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) published a monograph full of articles touting “integrative oncology,” including guidelines recommended by the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) for the “integrative” treatment of breast cancer symptoms.
I mention Dr. Katz for two reasons. First, he’s taken another broadside at us at Science-Based Medicine in blog entry at The Huffington Post—where else?—entitled “Holism, Holes and Poles” that I’ve been meaning to address for a while. But before I address Dr. Katz’s most recent complaint against science-based medicine (SBM), it’s necessary to step back and look at some history.
Friends, FDA, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Homeopathy, not to praise it.
The evil that homeopaths do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Homeopathy. The noble Ullman
Hath told you homeopathy was effective:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Homeopathy answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Ullman and the rest–
For Ullman is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Homeopathy’s funeral.
It was my nostrum, faithless and worthless to me:
But Ullman says it was effective;
And Ullman is an honourable man.
He hath brought many provings home to HPUS
Whose prescriptions did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Homeopathy seem effective?
When that the ill have died, Homeopathy hath wept:
Efficacy should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Ullman says it was effective;
And Ullman is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Cochrane
I thrice presented Homeopathy a meta-analysis,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this efficacy?
Yet Ullman says it was effective;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Ullman spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Sort of.
We only have a vague idea as to what other bloggers are going to write about. Yesterday Jann wrote on the same topic (and Scott the week before), which I will read tomorrow after my post goes up. Why would I want my post to be informed by another’s well-reasoned and thoughtful essay? I have a reputation after all. So here is my response to the FDA. (more…)
The FDA announced recently that it is holding a public hearing on April 21 and 22,
to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. These products include prescription drugs and biological products labeled as homeopathic and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs labeled as homeopathic. FDA is seeking participants for the public hearing and written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry.
It’s about time. We know that homeopathic remedies are not, and cannot be, effective. I will not plough that ground again here. Unfortunately, the FDA does not have any authority to bar these fraudulent products from sale altogether. Only Congress can do that.
In this post, I review the current regulatory framework for homeopathic products. I then explore the possibilities, given the opportunities for regulatory change presented by the FDA at this time. In doing so, I answer some of the questions posed by the FDA in its formal notice of the hearing, printed in the Federal Register.
I argue that the FDA has no statutory authority for the manner in which it currently regulates (or, actually, doesn’t regulate) homeopathic drugs. I further argue this system, largely controlled by the homeopathic industry, must be abandoned, and that there is no reason why homeopathic drugs should not be regulated just like any other OTC or prescription drug.
(Note to those wanting to submit written comments or attend the hearing: there are deadlines and other requirements for participation. You can read those in the Federal Register.)
In the category of potentially dangerous complementary or alternative medicine, I can think of few products worse than ones claimed to relieve asthma, yet don’t actually contain any medicine. Yet these products exist and are widely sold. Just over a year ago I described what might be the most irresponsible homeopathic treatment ever: A homeopathic asthma spray. If there was ever a complementary or alternative product that could cause serious harm, this is it:
Among the different treatments and remedies that are considered “alternative” medicine, homeopathy is the most implausible of all. Homeopathy is an elaborate placebo system, where the “remedies” lack any actual medicine. Based on the idea that “like cures like” (which is sympathetic magic, not science), proponents of homeopathy believe that any substance can be an effective remedy if it’s diluted enough: cancer, boar testicles, crude oil, oxygen, and skim milk are all homeopathic “remedies”. (I think Berlin Wall may be my favorite, though vacuum cleaner dust is a runner-up). The dilution in the case of homeopathy is so significant that there’s mathematically no possibility of even a trace of the original ingredient in the typical remedy – they are chemically indistinguishable from a placebo. To homeopaths, this is a good thing, as dilution is claimed to make the medicine-free “remedy” more potent, not less. As would be expected with inert products, rigorous clinical trials confirm what basic science (and math) predicts: homeopathy’s effects are placebo effects. Recently Steven Novella blogged about the Australian Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) comprehensive report on homeopathy which concluded the following: (more…)
In an effort to expand the Gorski empire almost to the level of the Crislip empire and to try to make it to somewhere within two or three orders of magnitude of the Novella empire, I’ve published an article on Slate.com about Prince Charles’ visit to our fine country entitled “Prince of Pseudoscience“. Consider this the mandatory shameless self-promotion that all SBM bloggers take advantage of from time to time to publicize their activities elsewhere.
Enjoy! (I hope.)
I’m told that Dana Ullman has made an appearance in the comments. I might have to head on over after work tonight…