Homeopathy: A
Position Statement by
the National Council Against Health Fraud
(1994)
edited by William Jarvis
HOMEOPATHY WAS DEVISED BY THE GERMAN
PHYSICIAN SAMUEL HAHNEMANN (1755–1843) as a reaction to
practices based upon the ancient humoral theory which he
labeled “allopathy.” The term has been misapplied to regular
medicine ever since. The cardinal principles of homeopathy
include that (1) most diseases are caused by an infectious
disorder called the psora;
(2) life is a spiritual force (vitalism)
which directs the body’s healing; (3) remedies can be
discerned by noting the symptoms that substances produce in
overdose (proving),
and applying them to conditions with similar symptoms in
highly diluted doses (Law of
Similia); (4) remedies become
more effective with greater dilution (Law
of Infinitesimals), and
become more dilute when containers are tapped on the heel of
the hand or a leather pad (potentizing).
Homeopathy’s principles
have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry, physics,
pharmacology, and pathology. Homeopathy meets the dictionary
definitions of a sect
and a cult
— the characteristics of which prevent advances that would
change Hahnemann’s original principles. Most homeopathic
studies are of poor methodological quality, and are subject to
bias. Homeopathic product labels do not provide sufficient
information to judge their dosages. Although homeopathic
remedies are generally thought to be nontoxic due to their
high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful. The
ostensible value of homeopathic products can be more than a
placebo effect because some products have contained effective
amounts of standard medications or have been adulterated. Only
about half of the 300 homeopaths listed in the Directory of
the National Center for Homeopathy are physicians. Others
include naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, dentists,
veterinarians, nurses or physician assistants. Homeopathy’s
appeal lies in its personal attention to patients. Homeopathy
is a magnet for untrustworthy practitioners who pose a threat
to public safety. A perverse belief in the “healing crisis”
causes practitioners to ignore adverse reactions, or to value
them as “toxins being expelled.” The marketing of homeopathic
products and services fits the definition of quackery
established by a United States House of Representatives
committee which investigated the problem (i.e., the promotion
of “medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which
are unproven, for a profit”). The United States Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act lists the
Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States
as a recognized compendium, but this status was due to
political influence, not scientific merit. The FDA has not
required homeopathic products to meet the efficacy
requirements applied to all other drugs, creating an
unacceptable double standard for drug marketing. The Federal
Trade Commission has not taken action against homeopathic
product advertising although it clearly does not meet the
standards of truthful advertising generally applied to drugs.
Postal authorities have not prosecuted mail-order product
promoters that make unproven claims for mail fraud. Three
states have established homeopathic licensing boards. Some of
these have been administered by medical mavericks with a
history of difficulties with former medical licensing boards.
Recommendations
The NCAHF advises consumers not to buy homeopathic products or
to patronize homeopathic practitioners. Basic scientists are
urged to be proactive in opposing the marketing of homeopathic
remedies because of conflicts with known physical laws. Those
who study homeopathic remedies are warned to beware of
deceptive practices in addition to applying sound research
methodologies. State and federal regulatory agencies are urged
to require homeopathic products to meet the same standards as
regular drugs, and to take strong enforcement actions against
violators, including the discipline of health professionals
who practice homeopathy. States are urged to abolish
homeopathic licensing boards.
Origin
Homeopathy (derived from the Greek words
homoios
“similar” and pathos
“suffering”) is a sectarian healing system devised by Samuel
Hahnemann (1755–1843), a German physician who rejected the
harsh medical practices of his era which included bleeding,
purging, vomiting and the administration of highly toxic
drugs. Practices of the era were based on the ancient Greek
humoral theory
which attributed disease to an imbalance of four humors
(blood, phlegm, and black and yellow bile) and four bodily
conditions (hot, cold, wet, and dry) that corresponded to four
elements (earth, air, fire, and water). Physicians attempted
to balance the humors by treating symptoms with “opposites.”
For instance, fever (hot) was believed to be due to excess
blood because patients were flushed; therefore, balance was
sought by blood-letting in order to “cool” the patient.
Hahnemann dubbed such practices “allopathy” (allos
“opposite,” pathos
“suffering”), and sought to replace it with his “Law of
Similia” that treated “like with like.” Although medicine
never accepted the label of allopathy, homeopaths continue to
misrepresent physicians as allopaths to make their differences
appear based upon conflicting ideologies rather than
scientific pragmatism. Medical writers often refer to medical
doctors as “allopaths” but their use of the term reflects an
alternate definition of allopathy as “a system of medical
practice making use of all measures
proved of value
(emphasis ours) in treatment of disease” (Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary).
This definition is inconsistent with its root words “allos”
and “pathos.” Its duplicity aids those who wish to
misrepresent medicine as ideologically allopathic (i.e.,
symptom suppression).
The Cardinal Principles of Homeopathy
The Psora and Vitalism
Hahnemann believed that 7/8ths of all
diseases are due to an infectious disorder called the
Psora
(itch). In the words of Hahnemann’s “Organon”: This Psora is
the sole true and fundamental cause that produces all the
other countless forms of disease, which, under the names of
nervous debility, hysteria, hypochondriasis, insanity,
melancholy, idiocy, madness, epilepsy, and spasms of all
kinds, softening of the bones, or rickets, scoliosis and
chophouses, caries, cancer, fungus haematodes, gout-asthma and
suppuration of the lungs, megrim, deafness, cataract and
amaurosis, paralysis, toss of sense, pains of every kind,
etc., appear in our pathology as so many peculiar, distinct,
and independent diseases (Stalker, 1985). Hahnemann believed
that diseases represent a disturbance in the body’s ability to
heal itself and that only a small stimulus is needed to begin
the healing process. He owed this to his faith in
vitalism,
which holds that life is a spiritual, nonmaterial process and
that the body contains an innate wisdom that is its own
healing force. A British homeopath explained its vitalism
(Twentyman, 1982):
Hahnemann … is … a child of the modern
age of natural science, an adept in the chemistry of his
day … But he can still hold a conviction that an
immaterial vital entity animates our organism until death
when the purely chemical forces prevail and decompose it …
.This vital entity which he characterizes as immaterial,
spirit-like, and which maintains in health the harmonious
wholeness of the organism, is in fact the wholeness of it,
can be influenced by dynamic causes. How does Hahnemann
attempt to clarify the idea? He draws attention to
phenomena like magnetic influences, the moon and the
tides, infective illnesses and perhaps most importantly
the influence of emotions and impulses of will on the
organism (pp. 221-225). Vitalism appeals to so-called
“Holistic” or “New Age” medicine devotees, who prefer a
metaphysical view of life processes, and readily accept
homeopathy despite its scientific deficiencies.
Provings and the Law of
Similia
Hahnemann’s invention of homeopathy is
reported to have originated with an experience in which he
ingested a substantial dose of cinchona bark (the source of
quinine) used to treat malaria. He noted that the symptoms he
experienced were similar to those of malaria. He reasoned that
since the remedy produced symptoms in overdose similar to the
condition it was used to treat, this principle, his Law of
Similia, could be used to discern the value of various
medicines. He called this process
proving
a medicine. Promoters often misrepresent homeopathy as
treating the “causes” rather than merely the “symptoms” of
disease, but its reliance on the “proving” of remedies shows
that homeopathy itself relies solely upon a symptom treatment.
Hahnemann’s Law of Similia utilized the primitive view of
monism
that “nature is a unitary, organic whole with no independent
parts” (Webster’s)
with inherent principles that
like is like,
like makes like,
and like cures like.
Monism is the basis of many ancient practices (e.g., eating
the heart of a lion for courage), and holds that if one object
resembles another they are alike in essence (like
is like); idolatry in which
carving a likeness of a god actually produces the god (like
makes like); and folk
medicine practices such as snakeroot being good for snakebite,
because of their resemblance (like
cures like). Hahnemann
revived Paracelsus’ Doctrine of Signatures, which declared
that herbs would cure conditions or anatomical parts they
resembled (Garrison, 1929, p. 206). The homeopathic Law of
Similia, however, is unsupported by the basic sciences of
physiology, pharmacology and pathology.
Law of Infinitesimal
“Potentizing”
Hahnemann’s
Law of Infinitesimals
holds that the smaller the dose of a medication, the more
powerful will be its healing effects. He taught that
substances could be potentized
(i.e., their “immaterial and spiritual powers” released to
make active substances more active, and inactive substances
active). The process of potentizing involved the sequential
dilution of remedial agents by
succussion
in which initial mixtures would be shaken at least 40 times,
nine parts dumped, and nine parts of solvent added and shaken
again. This process was repeated as many times as desired.
Tapping on a leather pad or the heel of the hand was alleged
to double the dilution — a notion that contradicts the laws of
physics. Remedies are diluted to powers of ten and labeled
with combinations of Arabic and Roman numerals (e.g., 3X=
1/1000, 4X= 1/10,000, 3C or 6X= 1/1,000,000, etc.). The fact
that 19th-Century homeopathic remedies were dilute placebos
made them preferable to the harsh concoctions being applied by
the humoral practitioners. According to the laws of chemistry,
there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without
losing the original substance altogether. This limit, called
Avogadro’s number (6.023 x 10-23)
corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in
1024).
At this dilution there is less than a 50% chance that even one
molecule of active material remains. Hahnemann himself
realized that there was virtually no chance that any of the
original substance remained at such high dilution, but
explained it away in metaphysical terms. In addition to being
contradicted by common sense, homeopathy’s Law of
Infinitesimals is invalidated by pharmaceutical dose-response
studies.
Promoters claim that
immunization and allergy desensitization verify homeopathy
because they treat like with like, but neither meets the
additional requirements of homeopathic theory and practice.
Immunizations do not alleviate symptoms or cure. Neither
immunization nor allergy desensitization grows stronger with
dilution, nor can they be “potentized.” Classical homeopaths
proclaim that eating for relief of indigestion proved that
like cures like, i.e., the Law of Similia. However, one does
not obtain relief from indigestion by eating “potentized
microdilutions” of the same
food that was originally ingested. Other attempts to validate
homeopathy such as the folksy value of “some of the hair of
the dog that bit you” to relieve a hangover also fail to
withstand close scrutiny.
Homeopathy and Science
Scientific medicine encompasses a
collection of procedures, each of which must stand on its own
as safe and effective for a specific purpose. History recounts
examples of ancient healers doing the right thing for the
wrong reason. Some bored holes in skulls (trephining) in order
to liberate angry demons thought to be causing head pain, and
in the process relieved intracranial pressure. This, however,
does not validate the Demonic Theory. Also, foul-smelling
swamps were drained on the basis of the miasmic theory, which
taught that foul-smelling emanations from the Earth caused
“bad air fever” (mal-air-ia). Further, Asclepian priests
scraped spear shavings into the spear-wounds of warriors
believing that the weapon that caused a wound would help in
its healing (like-cures-like). Copper sulfate from the bronze
spearheads may have inhibited infection. Just as doing these
right practices for the wrong reasons did not validate the
faulty theories upon which they were based, neither will the
success of a “homeopathic” remedy comprehensively validate
homeopathy’s theory, pharmacology, and metaphysics. Homeopathy
clearly fits Webster’s dictionary definitions of a
cult: “A
system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its
promulgator,” and a sect:
“a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or a leader.”
Healing cults or sects cannot progress and retain their
identity. Homeopathy is what Hahnemann said it was. To
progress scientifically homeopathy would have to accept
principles of pharmacology and pathology, which run counter to
its “law s” of similia and infinitesimals, its potency theory,
and notions of the psora and vitalism. By doing so, it would
no longer be homeopathy but biomedicine.
Studies of Homeopathy
Controlled studies involving homeopathic
remedies appear to divide along political lines. While the
results of most studies do not support the use of homeopathic
remedies, some ostensibly well-designed trials have yielded
positive findings. Some of these, however, have been done by
homeopaths, and their reports contain rhetoric that reflects
bias strong enough to undermine confidence in the researchers’
veracity. The best of these studies should be repeated by
objective investigators with independent analyses of the
homeopathic formulations employed to assure that they have not
been adulterated with active medications. A comprehensive
review of experimental research in homeopathy was done by
Scofield (1984). He concluded: “It is obvious from this review
that, despite much experimental and clinical work, there is
only little evidence to suggest that homeopathy is effective.
This is because of bad design, execution, reporting, analysis
and, particularly, failure to repeat promising experimental
work and not necessarily because of the inefficacy of the
system which has yet to be properly tested on a large enough
scale. There is sufficient evidence to warrant the execution
of well-designed, carefully controlled experiments.”
Scofield’s most encouraging statement for homeopaths was that
“homeopathy has most certainly not been disproved.” However,
Scofield ignored the scientific process. It is the absence of
proof,
not the absence of disproof,
that is important. This is consistent with scientific dicta
(based upon the statistical null hypothesis) that (1) no
practice can be deemed safe or effective until proved to be
so; and (2) the burden of proof is upon proponents.
A more recent meta-analysis of 107
controlled homeopathy trials appearing in 96 published reports
also found “the evidence of clinical trials is positive but
not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most
trials are of low methodological quality and because of the
unknown role of publication bias.” They also concluded that
there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of
homeopathy, “but only by means of well-performed trials”
(Kleijnen, 1991).
In 1988, a French
scientist working at that country’s prestigious INSERM
institute claimed to have found that high dilutions of
substances in water left a “memory,” providing a rationale for
homeopathy’s Law of Infinitesimals. His findings were
published in a highly regarded science journal, but with the
caveat that the findings were unbelievable, and that the work
was financed by a large homeopathic drug manufacturer (Nature,
1988). Subsequent investigations, including those by James
Randi, disclosed that the research had been inappropriately
carried out. The scandal resulted in the suspension of the
scientist. Careful analysis of the study revealed that had the
results been authentic, homeopathy would be more likely to
worsen a patient’s condition than to heal, and that it would
be impossible to predict the effect of the same dose from one
time to another (Sampson, 1989).
The sectarian nature of homeopathy raises
serious questions about the trustworthiness of homeopathic
researchers. Scofield appropriately stated: “It is hardly
surprising in view of the quality of much of the experimental
work as well as its philosophical framework, that this system
of medicine is not accepted by the medical and scientific
community at large.” Two guiding rules required by skeptics of
pseudoscience should be applied to homeopathic research, to
wit: (1) extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence;
and (2) it is not necessary to prove fraud, rather, the
research must be done in such a manner that fraud is not
possible.
Homeopathic Products
Dubious Labeling
Recent years have seen an explosion of products labeled as
“homeopathic.” Among them are raw animal glands, herbal
concoctions, and mineral remedies. Although some are reruns of
old-time homeopathic preparations, others appear to be merely
pretenders with high-dilution their only homeopathic feature.
For instance. homeopathic raw bovine testicles may be highly
diluted, but in order to be truly homeopathic they should have
been “proved” and potentized. To have been proved, healthy
people should have been fed raw bovine testicles in moderate
doses and the side-effects analyzed. Gland products are not
representative of the kinds of therapeutic substances
homeopaths have traditionally attempted to “prove,” and it is
unlikely that ingesting significant amounts of raw bovine
testicles would produce any side effects. Such products appear
to be intended to ward off regulatory enforcement action by
merely labeling them “homeopathic,” but such products do not
meet the basic consumer protection principle of accurate
labeling. Standard drug labeling informs consumers about the
quantity of active ingredients per dose; homeopathic labeling
only informs consumers about the number of serial dilutions of
the remedy.
Questionable Safety
Although homeopathic remedies are
generally thought to be nontoxic due to their high dilutions,
some preparations have proved to be harmful. Perverse belief
in the “healing crisis”
can cause pseudomedical practitioners to misjudge adverse
reactions as beneficial. Healing crisis is the theory that the
body innately knows what is best for it. There is a corollary
belief that adverse reactions to “natural remedies” are due to
“toxins” being expelled, and that the worse these are, the
worse would have been future diseases if not detoxified. Thus,
believers are not alarmed by adverse reactions, and are
encouraged to continue treating. At the same time,
“allopathic” medicine is denigrated as the “suppressing of
symptoms that represent the body’s natural healing processes.”
Kerr and Yarborough (1986) reported a case of pancreatitis
that developed in a patient ingesting a homeopathic remedy
prescribed by a chiropractor. According to the authors, the
manufacturer stated that 40-45% of persons taking the remedy
experienced a healing crisis that included abdominal pain.
Although classical homeopathy employed numerous extremely
toxic substances in infinitesimal amounts, Kerr found that two
of six homeopathic remedies ordered by mail contained “notable
quantities” of arsenic. NCAHF doubts that homeopathic devotees
would systematically report adverse effects.
Suspicious Effectiveness
Much has been made of the fact that a 24X
dilution would no longer contain a single molecule of the
original substance, and reported benefits are generally
attributed to the placebo effect. However, many homeopathic
dosages, although dilute, may contain enough of a substance to
be effective. Homeopathic products also may work because of
adulteration. Morice (1986, pp. 862-863) reported that a
homeopathic remedy called “Dumcap” appeared to be effective in
treating asthma. Although labeled as containing “nux vomica”
(strychnine), arsenic album (arsenic trioxide),
Blatta onentalis
(cockroach extract), and stramoni folic (stramonium), analysis
revealed that the product was adulterated with therapeutic
levels of the antiasthma, steroidal drugs
prednisolone
and betamethasone.
Studies of homeopathic deemed unacceptable unless they have
been monitored to assure that they were prepared according to
homeopathic principles, their contents verified and dosage
quantified, and secured to prevent tampering. As was stated
above, simply labeling a product “homeopathic” does not
guarantee that it does not contain a pharmacologically active
dosage of an active substance (not all dilutions exceed
Avogadro’s number). To validate a specific homeopathic remedy,
replication by others who have no vested interest in the
results is required. To validate homeopathic theory, higher
dilutions would also have to be shown to work better than
higher concentrations. Thomas Paine, a signer of the United
States’ Declaration of Independence, is credited with
establishing a principle for judging supernatural phenomena.
He asked, “Is it easier to believe that nature has gone out of
her course or that a man would tell a lie?”
Homeopathic Services
Census
The 1993 directory of the National Center for Homeopathy
(Alexandria, VA) lists about 300 licensed practitioners. About
half of these are physicians. The rest are mostly naturopaths,
chiropractors, acupuncturists, veterinarians, dentists,
nurses, or physician’s assistants. A homeopathic marketing
firm spokesperson believes that several hundred more consider
themselves to be homeopaths, and that many conventional
physicians utilize one or more homeopathic remedies (National
Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 1993). However, no data have
been published supporting these estimates. In 1991–2, 36.9% of
chiropractors reported using homeopathic remedies in their
practices.
A Haven for Untrustworthy
Practitioners
Part of homeopathy’s appeal is the personal attention paid to
patients (Avina and Schneiderman, 1978). In practice,
classical homeopaths emphasize taking 30 to 45 minutes with
each patient, paying careful attention to the emotional state
and administering only one remedy at a time. Classical
homeopathy’s close personal attention to patients, benign
remedies, and special appeal to a select clientele make it
seem innocuous if practitioners have the competence and good
sense to recognize serious disorders and readily refer to
other physicians. This, however, is not always the case.
Pseudosciences such as homeopathy, even if relatively benign,
are magnets for cranks and charlatans. This poses a serious
problem because untrustworthy or incompetent practitioners
should not be granted the privilege of administering health
care. True believing cranks may pose a more serious threat
than con men because of their devotion to homeopathy’s
ideology. Their sincerity may make them more socially
tolerable, but it can add to their potential danger.
Irrational health care is never harmless, and it is
irresponsible to create patient confidence in pseudomedicine.
Although homeopathy may not pose a significant risk for a
basically healthy patient, at some future time that same
patient could face a situation where a life-or-death decision
may swing on just such unwarranted confidence.
Some practitioners do
not practice in homeopathy’s classical manner, but use its
“benign” reputation as a cover. A well-documented example
occurred in Nevada. According to an expose by the
Las Vegas Review-Journal,
several maverick MDs who had been in serious legal difficulty
in other states descended on Nevada and managed to get the
State Legislature to set up a homeopathic licensing board with
themselves in charge. However, none was actually practicing
homeopathy. Rather, using an unapproved electronic device they
practiced “energy medicine.” When faced with the fact that
they had deceived the State Legislature, proponents stated
that they had used the more familiar term “homeopathy” because
they feared that the legislators would not be able to grasp
the new concept of “bioenergetics.” The Nevada legislature
rewrote the homeopathic practice act in 1987, specifically
stating that Nevada homeopaths were limited to using
substances prepared according to “the methods of Hahnemannian
dilution and succussion, magnetically energized geometric
pattern as defined in the official homeopathic pharmacopeia of
the United States” (Hayslett, 1987).
It is difficult to believe that a physician
could simultaneously sustain confidence in both homeopathy and
scientific health care. It is common for homeopaths to
misrepresent regular medicine as misguided to justify their
unusual practices. Of special concern to NCAHF is the
substitution of homeopathic preparations for standard
immunizations. In 1989, an Idaho naturopath was prosecuted for
selling homeopathic “immunization kits,” which contained
alcohol-and-water solutions and sugar pills. Defenders claimed
that the homeopathic immunization products would “stimulate
the immune system;” and that the FDA laboratory could not
detect the active ingredients because they were so highly
diluted with sugar.
Quackery
NCAHF is primarily concerned with
homeopathy in the marketplace. It believes that marketing
unproven homeopathic products and services precisely fits the
definition of quackery: “A quack is anyone who promotes
medical schemes or remedies known to be false, or which are
unproven, for a profit’’ (Quackery,
1984). Dr. Kenneth Milstead, then Deputy Director of the FDA
Bureau of Enforcement, stated (Young, 1968):
It matters not whether the article is
harmless or whether it gives some psychosomatic relief;
whether it is cheap or whether it has value for other
purposes; whether it is produced by an obscure firm or
whether it is produced by a “reputable” firm — the
promotion of it is still quackery.
Regulators Fiddle While Consumers Are
Burned
Federal Regulation
For many years homeopathic product marketing was quiescent,
but with the health fad boom of the 1970s and 1980s, promoters
began touting homeopathic remedies. In 1985 the FDA estimated
that between 50 and 60 companies were marketing such products
in the United States (FDA, 1985). The 1938 Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act contains a section that recognizes as “drugs”
items listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United
States. This was mainly due to the efforts of New York Senator
Royal Copeland who was the foremost homeopathic physician of
his day. In 1938, safety was the main issue, and the highly
diluted homeopathic products seemed to pose no inherent
danger. However, in 1962, the Kefauver-Harris Amendment was
passed requiring that drugs be proved effective before
distribution. A legal fight loomed as to whether or not
homeopathic drugs were grandfathered by the law, but FDA did
not press the issue. Instead, it permitted products aimed at
common ailments to be marketed over-the-counter (OTC), and
restricted those aimed at serious ailments to prescription
only. This “passed the buck” to the states that regulate the
practitioners who write the prescriptions, putting consumers
at the mercy of maverick homeopathic physicians. It also sent
a signal to marketers that it was open season on consumers
with regard to OTC homeopathic products. The resulting
marketplace growth increased the ability of trade groups to
gain political support and made future regulatory action more
difficult. Homeopathic claims of efficacy are unsubstantiated
and violate the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) advertising
standards, but the FTC has not acted against homeopathic
advertising claims. Homeopathic remedies sold or transported
by mail are subject to action by the U.S. Postal Inspectors,
but few such actions have been taken.
State Regulation
Only Arizona, Connecticut, and Nevada have separate
homeopathic licensing boards. At least two of these have
included in prominent roles maverick medical doctors who have
been in legal difficulties as regular physicians. Some state
licensing boards permit licensed medical doctors to practice
almost any kind of medicine they wish. Others, rightly in
NCAHF’s opinion, require that health care be held to rational
and responsible standards. To its credit, the North Carolina
Board of Medical Examiners revoked the license of the state’s
only practicing homeopath, concluding that he was “failing to
conform to the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical
practice.” This resulted in a prolonged legal battle over the
ability of a licensing board to impose standards of practice
on its constituency. The state legislature eventually passed a
law that limited the board’s disciplinary power undermining
the consumer protection aspects of responsible medicine.
Adopted February, 1994 by the National Council Against Health
Fraud.
Copyright © 1994. All Rights Reserved.
Recommendations
To Consumers
Be aware that homeopathic products and services are
marketed in a “buyer beware” situation at present.
Homeopathic products are not required to meet the
standards of effectiveness of drugs. Homeopathic services
are poorly regulated. Physicians who practice homeopathy
operate below the standards of responsible medicine. Some
have backgrounds that raise serious questions about their
honesty. Be aware that in some states that have
homeopathic licensing boards the “foxes are guarding the
chicken coops.” Consumers should not entrust their health
to physicians or nonphysicians who practice homeopathy.
To Basic Scientists
Homeopathy conflicts more with basic laws of physics,
chemistry and pharmacology than with clinical medicine.
Pharmacologists should be more proactive in opposing the
marketing of homeopathic remedies. Because homeopathic
theories contradict known physical laws, tests of
homeopathic remedies require controls beyond those
normally required of double-blind clinical trials
including additional measures to show that fraud was not
possible.
To the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(1) Require that labels of homeopathic products indicate
the precise amounts of ingredients in milligrams,
micrograms, etc. (2) Require homeopathic products to meet
the efficacy standards of all other drugs.
To the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(1) Review advertising of homeopathic products in
publications aimed at the public for false and misleading
claims. (2) Monitor and take action against advertisements
in trade publications used to indoctrinate salespeople,
who will in turn deceive consumers about the value of
homeopathic products.
To U.S. Postal Inspectors
Prosecute distributors of homeopathic mail-order products
that make unproven medical claims for mail fraud.
To State Legislators
Because homeopathy is scientifically indefensible: (1)
Enact laws requiring that medical products sold within
your state meet the standards of accurate labeling,
truthful advertising, and premarketing proof of safety and
effectiveness. (2) Abolish state licensing boards for
homeopathy. (3) Do not allow homeopathy in the scope of
practice of any health care provider.
To State Food & Drug Regulators
Take prompt regulatory action against manufacturers,
wholesalers, and retailers of homeopathic products who
violate the law.
To Medical Licensing Boards
(1)
Discipline homeopathic practitioners for unprofessional
conduct. (2) Prosecute nonphysicians engaging in
homeopathy for practicing medicine without a license.
Because homeopathy is scientifically indefensible: (1)
Enact laws requiring that medical products sold within
your state meet the standards of accurate labeling,
truthful advertising, and premarketing proof of safety and
effectiveness. (2) Abolish state licensing boards for
homeopathy. (3) Do not allow homeopathy in the scope of
practice of any health care provider.
About the NCAHF
The National Council Against Health Fraud is a private
nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health
misinformation, fraud and quackery as public health problems.
Its funding is derived primarily from membership dues and
newsletter subscriptions. NCAHF unites consumers with health
professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys, and others
who believe that everyone has a stake in the quality of the
health marketplace. NCAHF’s positions on consumer health
issues are based upon principles of science that form the
basis of consumer protection law. These require: (1) full
disclosure in labeling and other warranties (no secret
formulas); (2) premarketing proof of safety and efficacy for
products and services that claim to prevent, alleviate, or
cure any disease or disorder; and (3) accountability for those
who violate consumer laws. Its officers and board members
serve without compensation. For more information, write:
NCAHF, P.O. Box 1276, Loma Linda, CA 92354-1276; fax:
909-824-4838.
Bibliography
- Avina, Schneiderman. 1978. West J Med.
128:366–9.
- Barrett, Jarvis. 1993. The Health Robbers.
Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
- Board of Science and Education. 1986. Alternative
Therapy. British Med Assoc.
- FDA Consumer. 1985. March.
- Garrison. 1929. History of Medicine. W.B.
Saunders.
- Hayslett. 1987. Las Vegas Review Journal.
July 5.
- Kerr, Yarborough. 1986. New Engl J Med. 314:
(25): 1642–3.
- Kerr, J. 1986. Taxicol Clin Toxicol, 24:
451–459.
- Kleijnen, Knipschild. 1991. Brit Med J. 302:
316–23.
- Morice. 1986. The Lancet, April 12.
- National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. 1993.
Job Analysis of Chiropractic.
- Nature. 1988. 333: 816
- Quackery: A $10 Billion Scandal. 1984. U.S.
House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 2nd Session,
Comm. Publ. #98-435, May 31.
- Sampson. 1989. Skeptical Inquirer, Fall.
- Scofield. 1984. The Brit Homeo J. 73:
161-226.
- Stalker, Glymour. Examining Holistic Medicine.
Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1985.
- Twentyman. 1982. Royal Soc. of Health J. 102
(5): 221–225.
- Young. 1968. The Medical Messiahs. Princeton,
1968.