Articles

Posts Tagged Food and Drug Administration

FTC Homeopathy Win

homeopathy-air-guitar
I love to see a regulatory agency actually do its job. Especially within medicine, where it is most important, the lack of political will seems to get in the way of properly regulating health care products and services in the way that most consumers assume they are regulated.

Homeopathy is perhaps the best example. Homeopathy is pure unadulterated pseudoscience and witchcraft. There is no legitimate scientific debate about this. Homeopaths create their potions by starting with fanciful substances that can’t work and then dilute them out of existence. The result is plain water that they claim has magical properties. Yes – that’s really what it is.

Unsurprisingly, rigorous clinical trials have shown that homeopathic potions in fact do not work. (more…)

Posted in: Homeopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical science policy in the U.S. under Donald Trump

When Dr. Oz met Donald Trump: Somehow this photo just seemed appropriate for this post.

When Dr. Oz met Donald Trump: Somehow this photo just seemed appropriate for this post.

Last week, in an unexpected upset, Donald Trump won the Presidential election in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote and is now President-Elect. Regular readers of my not-so-super-secret other blog know my opinion of this; so I won’t belabor it too much here. If you’re curious, I have written about Donald Trump’s antivaccine views here before in the context of last year’s Republican debates, and, amusingly, I’ve even been at the receiving end of criticism from an “integrative medicine” activist in which my snark was compared to that of Donald Trump and my criticism labeled “Trumpism.” As you might imagine, I was not pleased.

Leaving all that aside and leaving aside how we’ve now had two Presidential elections out of the last five in which the candidate with fewer popular votes became President (no, I’m not a fan of the Electoral College), Donald Trump won fair and square and will be our next President. As an advocate of science-based medicine, naturally I wondered: What can we expect in terms of medical science under President Trump next year? Jann Bellamy already began the discussion on this blog by undertaking a fairly comprehensive overview of the disturbing anti-science positions Donald Trump and many now coming into his new administration espouse. I’m going to do a bit of the same, but I’m going to drill down and focus solely on medical science. While I agree that Trump’s position on human-caused climate change and his stated intent to pull out of important climate treaties and, in essence, cease any attempt to mitigate the effects of human activity on climate change is a looming disaster that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren and beyond will likely curse our generation for, this blog is Science-Based Medicine.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Medical devices, Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

An Update on FDA Concerns Over Homeopathic Teething Products

babybelladonna

Steven Novella recently wrote a post discussing an FDA warning against the use of homeopathic teething products over safety concerns related to the possibility of toxic amounts of belladonna. He goes into the hypocrisy of the FDA regulation of homeopathic products, a topic covered numerous times here on Science-Based Medicine, as well as the misleading initial response from Hyland’s, producers of the most popular homeopathic teething remedies in the United States and Canada. There have been some updates over the past two weeks that I’ll cover in this post. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Stem Cell Tourism for Eye Disease: No Passport Required

all-seeing-eye

Stem cell clinics outside the United States, and outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. regulations, have flourished and the pursuit of treatment at these centers has been called “stem cell tourism.” Seekers of unproven stem cell therapies no longer need to look outside the U.S. Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell researcher and leading advocate for the responsible use of stem cell technology, wrote an SBM post on the regulatory aspects of stem cell treatment, a highly recommended read. He also coauthored an article highlighting the direct-to-consumer stem cell industry in the United States. For now, the article is behind a paywall. Fortunately, David Gorski summarized the article here. The authors found a shocking 351 businesses advertising stem cell treatment at 570 locations in the U.S. The problem is that the proliferation of for-profit facilities far outpaces the science on stem cell therapies. Most of these facilities are selling treatments without proven value and with mostly unknown safety.

Clearly, there is no shortage of “experts” prepared to sell you expensive, unproven stem cell treatments for a multitude of diseases. So who can you trust? If I wanted a source of reliable information about stem cell treatment, I might be tempted to seek out the world’s leading homeopathic ophthalmologist!

Introducing: the World’s Leading Homeopathic Ophthalmologist

How do I know Dr. Edward Kondrot is the world’s leading homeopathic ophthalmologist? It says so, right on his website. But it would be an injustice to simply characterize Dr. Kondrot as a homeopathic ophthalmologist. Dr. Kondrot is a Renaissance man of alternative medicine. He is a Board Certified Ophthalmologist, author, radio show host, Fellow of the College of Syntronics, Research Chairman for the College of Syntronics, Adjunct Professor Department of Research at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, President of the Arizona Integrative and Homeopathic Medical Association and member American Academy of Ozonotherapy, just to name a few of the credentials listed on his bio. If you Google Dr. Kondrot’s name you will find he has quite a presence on the internet. I find this video to be particularly endearing. (more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

FDA Warns About Homeopathic Teething Products

homeopathic-teething-croppedThe FDA recently put out a consumer warning about homeopathic teething gels and pills. The warning states:

The FDA recommends that consumers stop using these products and dispose of any in their possession.

The warning is not because all homeopathic products are inherently useless. As we have discussed here often, the basic principles of homeopathy are pure pseudoscience. The practice of diluting substances so that almost no or no active ingredient remains means that most homeopathic products are just sugar pills. Further, clinical studies show that homeopathic products don’t work. There isn’t a single homeopathic product that has been shown to be effective for a single condition with rigorous clinical trials.

The FDA acknowledges this, writing in their warning:

Homeopathic teething tablets and gels have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safety or efficacy. The agency is also not aware of any proven health benefit of the products, which are labeled to relieve teething symptoms in children.

(more…)

Posted in: Homeopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →

FDA efforts to improve compounded drug safety upsets naturopaths

herbs-nd1
Favorite naturopathic treatments comprise pumping patients full of dubious mixtures by injection, including IV drips. Naturopaths also employ topicals (salves, ointments and creams), rectal, and vaginal suppositories, and oral medications, such as bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, all made from “natural” substances.

According to the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP)

these nutritional, herbal and homeopathic remedies are compounded to meet unique patient needs and are not typically available from the large drug manufacturers that don’t make small batches of such specialized products.

Not to mention the fact that it is highly doubtful these questionable remedies could make it through the FDA drug approval process, which requires proven safety and efficacy.

The FDA’s recent steps to improve drug compounding safety is a welcome curb on these practices. Draft Guidance issued in April addresses both compounding for office use and by prescription. (“Office use” refers to creating a supply of a compounded drug to be used by a health care practitioner as needed, as opposed to compounding a drug per a specific prescription for an individual patient.) In June, the FDA also issued an Interim Policy on substances that can be used in compounding a drug. We’ll discuss how these affect naturopathic practice in a moment. (more…)

Posted in: Guidelines, Herbs & Supplements, Homeopathy, Legal, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

False balance about Stanislaw Burzynski and his disproven cancer therapy, courtesy of STAT News

Stanislaw Burzynski: 40 years of failure to prove that his antineoplastons are effective against cancer.

Stanislaw Burzynski: 40 years of failure to prove that his antineoplastons are effective against cancer.

One common theme that has been revisited time and time again on this blog since its very founding is the problem of how science and medicine are reported. For example, back when I first started blogging, years before I joined Science-Based Medicine in 2008, one thing that used to drive me absolutely nuts was the tendency of the press to include in any story about vaccines an antivaccine activist to “tell the other side” or to “balance” the story. So in a story on vaccines, on one side you would have Paul Offit, a bona fide, legitimate vaccine expert, and on the other side you would have J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, or a lesser light of the antivaccine movement. This same trope included stories about autistic children in which a reporter does a human interest story about a family struggling with raising an autistic child in which he lets the parents spout antivaccine misinformation, providing only a brief token quote by a scientist for “balance.” Thus, whether they intended it or not, the reporter would let the emotional impact of the story serve as persuasion to believe the parents’ antivaccine views. So, even though there was not (and hasn’t been at least since 2001 or probably much earlier) anything resembling legitimate scientific controversy over the question of whether vaccines cause or contribute to autism, the press aided the antivaccine movement in keeping alive the appearance of a controversy. It was, as I like to call these things, a manufactroversy, a controversy manufactured by the antivaccine movement to give the appearance of an actual scientific controversy. It’s a time-dishonored journalistic failing that is still a major problem with reporting on, for example, anthropogenic global climate change and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Sometimes, however, the press is teachable. A few years ago, after already having blogged about vaccines and autism for several years, I started noticing fewer stories with false “balance” and more stories that simply treated the antivaccine movement like the fringe movement it was, either not bothering to mention it or, if it had to mention it, basically letting scientists explain why it’s bad science and dangerous to public health. These days, false balance and stories that are antivaccine propaganda are relatively rare, aside from stories by fringe journalists like Sharyl Attkisson and Ben Swann. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately, I wish I could say that I really believe it was due to the efforts of skeptics and science advocates more than it was due to the discrediting of a major antivaccine figure, Andrew Wakefield, but even six years after Wakefield lost his medical license and saw his infamous 1998 Lancet paper linking the MMR vaccine to bowel disease in autistic children (the one that ignited the MMR scare in the UK) retracted, I’m not entirely sure. Be that as it may, there still remain blind spots in the press. (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Supplements, Lies, and a Lengthy Transcript

Thanks, Congress, for making bull testicles available as a dietary supplement!

Thanks, Congress, for making bull testicles available as a dietary supplement!

On October 21, 1993, there was a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee for Labor and Human Resources, with the long-winded title:

Examining How the Federal Government Should Regulate the Marketing and Use of Dietary Supplements and Related Measures, Including S. 784, To Strengthen Federal Standards with Respect To Dietary Supplements.

S. 784, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, would eventually be enacted as the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

I discovered this bit of Congressional theater when doing research for my recent talk at NECSS. Scott Gavura and I joined forces to present “Natural Disaster: Dietary Supplements.” Scott focused on pharmacology, while I talked about FDA regulation of dietary supplements (or lack thereof). Thanks to him, I now have a rudimentary knowledge of pharmacokinetics, the science behind how a drug or supplement works (or doesn’t) in the body. If you haven’t read his post from last week explaining this, and more, you should.

Reading the lengthy hearing transcript (well, ok, a lot of it) confirmed my suspicions that the fix was in even before the gavel went down to begin the hearing. What I had not realized was, at least according to some proponents of DSHEA, part of the deal was that consumers would have access to accurate information backing efficacy claims made for supplements and their safety. Nor had I realized that the weaknesses of DSHEA, which have become painfully obvious in the 20-plus years since the law was passed, were anticipated from the get-go and that Congress was well-informed of what they were. Finally, I was not previously aware of the provenance (shall we say) of the “experts” asked to testify at the behest of Sen. Hatch.

First, let’s set the stage on which this drama plays out, according to two excellent books on dietary supplements, Natural Causes and Vitamania. In 1991, Congress passed the Nutrition Education and Labeling Act (NELA). Most famously, NELA, for the first time, required that all foods bear the now-familiar nutrition label. It also required that any health claims made for foods be backed by “significant scientific agreement.” Rep. Henry Waxman and others wanted the same standard applied to dietary supplement health claims. After all, if food companies had to meet a certain standard to make health claims for, say, calcium in their products, why shouldn’t claims for the health benefits of calcium in dietary supplement form be held to the same standard? But the supplement industry knew it couldn’t survive under such stringent rules and Sen. Hatch made sure it didn’t happen. All parties agreed to let the FDA decide what standard should be required of supplement health claims and left it at that. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Legal, Nutrition, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

What (if anything) does “natural” mean?

"When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more, nor less." Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

“When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more, nor less.”
Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass”

What does the term “natural” mean on a label? Does it mean anything? Should it mean anything? Good questions. And complicated ones, judging from the list of questions the FDA needs your help in answering.

The FDA has resisted defining “natural” in food product labeling, including whether foods that are genetically engineered, or contain genetically engineered ingredients, can use the term. Back in 1991, the agency set out to issue regulations but abandoned the effort and has since held to an informal policy that “natural” means

nothing artificial or synthetic (including color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.

The only official legal requirement for using the description “natural” on a food label is that it not be misleading or false, which is forbidden by the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act of 1938. In that appetite-suppressing way of statutory language, “food” is defined by the Act as

articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles for used for components of any such article.

For regulatory purposes, dietary supplements are also considered foods in most cases. (more…)

Posted in: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Legal, Nutrition, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Patient Beware: Off-label drug promotion by pharmaceutical companies

In truth, physicians are rarely this happy to see a drug rep.

In truth, physicians are rarely this happy to see a drug rep.

Pharmaceutical companies and their sales reps can distribute information, such as medical journal articles, about unapproved (“off-label“) uses of their drugs as long as they adhere to FDA guidelines. However, the FDA takes the position that this information must be distributed separately from information that is “promotional in nature,” i.e., for marketing purposes, a position that is now open to question.

Off-label promotion of a drug for a use that has not been approved by the FDA is, in the FDA’s view, a violation of the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDC Act). It is subject to criminal prosecution, because promoting a drug for new, unapproved uses is evidence of an intent that the drug be used before it has gone through the extensive process of clinical trials and a review of the evidence of safety and efficacy by a panel of experts, as required by law before a drug can be marketed. Thus, off-label promotion is seen as an end-run around the approval process that perverts the purpose of the FDC Act, which is to protect the public from ineffective and unsafe drugs.

Studies show that personal sales visits to physicians by pharmaceutical reps (called “detailing”) drives prescriptions in favor of the drugs being promoted. This is true even though physicians’ view of detailing ranges from neutral to highly negative, a “necessary evil,” and physicians are aware of potential conflicts of interest these visits precipitate.

While there are restrictions on off-label promotion, off-label prescribing by a physician is not illegal. Physician practice is regulated by the states and not within the jurisdiction of the FDA. In fact, off-label prescribing is considered both ethical and within the standard of care in appropriate circumstances. (I am currently taking a drug for an off-label use, and was informed of this, plus the risks and benefits, by my physician prior to his prescribing it.) It is also common, according to an article by law professors Ryan Abbot and Ian Ayers in the Duke Law Journal, which is well worth reading:

for the 3 leading drugs in each of the 15 leading drug classes, off-label use accounts for approximately 21% of prescriptions. Moreover, off-label uses may be the norm in some areas of practice, such as oncology, pain management, and palliative care, and in some patient populations, such as children, the elderly, and the severely ill. For example, about 80 percent of all drug prescriptions for children are off-label, and between 80 and 90 percent of all drug prescriptions for rare diseases are off-label. [Footnotes omitted.]

(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Ethics, Legal, Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 6 12345...»