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 wordshomoios �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
andbetamethasone. 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 non-physicians 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 pre-marketing
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 non-physicians 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 pre-marketing 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..
Return to Health & Nutrition Articles
Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose
use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational
use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair
use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
