Slamming Homeopathy

[Dale Moss]

Another attempt to discredit homeopathy by the ignorant, this one from Consumer Reports, which should know better.
"Consumer Reports journalist, Doug Podolsky, took a stab at homeopathy in the recent issue of Consumer Reports. Despite over 200 years of successful use for a variety of ailments, homeopathy is quackery, according to Podolsky who writes, "Check whether over-the-counter products are labeled homeopathic. If they are, we think you should put them back on the shelf." Podolsky's Consumer Reports piece references a 2005 study indicating homeopathy is ineffective, but he fails to mention the study has since been debunked.Unfortunately, due to the prestige of Consumer Reports, the article has already gone viral, as marketing firms and pharmaceutical companies spread it far and wide in an attempt to snuff competition from the natural health world."

The Organic Consumers Association issued an alert on this. To see just how sloppy Podolsky's "research" was and to send a message of dissent, use the following link:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/64 ... _KEY=24667
Peace,
Dale

[Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D.]

Hi, Dale.
You're right that Consumer Reports "ought to know better." Unfortunately they've consistently been anti-homeopathy and, for that matter, unrelentingly pro-medicine and anti-alternative anything. It's really unfortunate. The only recourse would be a rebellion among their members. If enough CR members felt inclined to cancel their subscriptions and write a note with that to affirm that it's because of CR's stance on alternative health practices, that might make them begin to pay attention. Or if it were possible to generate some widely noticed bad press for them because of something they said, they'd notice. Otherwise, since they accept no advertising or outside funding, they're pretty impervious.
Rosemary

________________________________

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 563 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[Leilanae]

Hi Rosemary,

I found the article very confusing and NOT accurate. Remember when the group was discussing the definition of the term "homeopathic"? Well, it think this CR article has some
confusion about the definition.

Checking out the Zicam Allergy Relief label at the local chain drug store, indeed in does have the word "homeopathic" on the box. Active ingredients: Luffa Operculata 4X, 12X, 30X. Galphimia Glauca 12X, 30X. Histaminum Hydrochloricum 12X, 30X, 200X,. and Sulphur 12X, 30X, 200X.
Inactive ingredients: benzelkoneum chloride, Benayl alcohol, adatete disoluim, glycine, a hydor word I didn't spell right, potassium phosphate, purified water, sodium chloride and sodium phosphate. (Sorry about the mis-spellings. The info on the box was in teeny. tiny type.) Oh yes, suggested 4 times a day for 1 to 2 weeks or 4 times a day one week before contact with allergen. Can't imagine why I didn't see HPUS on the box.

(check out Zicam's clinical trial: http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.phpxml ... /zicam.xml)

I also checked into the comments about the FDA.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively). (http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/c ... 0-400.html)
So, I'm wondering if CR is confused about the definition of "homeopathic" and "HPUS Homeopathic Remedy"
The rest of the CR article seemed to be about product packaging and store display and I'm not quite sure what this has to do with homeopathy. In fact, not sure what the whole article has to do with homeopathy.

What did you notice about the article?
Leilanae

[Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D.]

Hi, Leilanae,
I did not read this particular article -- Dale Moss did, and I was adding to her comments about Consumer Reports in general. Yes, I believe you're right, that they're confused, as are many Americans, health care practitioners or patients, about what is "homeopathic" and what is simply "alternative," whatever that might be. The mother of a young patient of mine contacted me, panicked, saying her pediatrician had told her she absolutely should not use any homeopathic remedies because they were "full of lead contamination." I was really puzzled, and googled "homeopathy" and "lead contamination." What came up was a recent newspaper article about lead contamination having been found in a particular Chinese combination herbal compound!
I have in the past noticed, upon reading a bunch of CR health publications, that they are very anti- alternative health care, of every stripe, of course including homeopathy.
While I'm on my soapbox, which I intend to leave as soon as I finish this message, Zicam is an infortunate compound for people to consider as representative of homeopathy. Not only does it include a bunch of remedies and potencies together, but it also includes a bunch of chemicals. Yuck! I agree with CR on that one!!
Rosemary

________________________________

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 563 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[Leilanae]

It sure does seem that way. Perhaps educating the public would help?
No way!!! Interesting neither one of them checked for the facts like you did.
Yes, their Zicam Allergy Relief product is an interesting combination of ingredients. Sulph 200X (plus the other ingredients) every 4 hours for a week or two is sure going to bring up some interesting provings.

Leilanae

[Celia M. Malm]

>Yes, their Zicam Allergy Relief product is an interesting combination
I remember looking at the ingredients on some so-called "homeopathic" cold medicine. Menthol was one of them. I guess that would antidote anything the remedies actually did.
Cee

[Leilanae]

Hi Cee,

It sure sounds like it would antidote. I think this involves the definition of "homeopathic"
and HPUS Homeopathic Remedy. A month or so ago we had a discussion on this list
about the definition of the word "homeopathic".

Maybe Ardavan, Soroush or Dr. Roz will comment on the definition.

Leilanae

[Shannon Nelson]

On May 26, 2008, at 11:57 AM, leilanae wrote:
This is a good example of why it IS a problem not to have an accepted,
even "legal", definition of homeopathy! Yeah it's a can of worms, but
*until* we have some definition, we're at the mercy of anyone with a
marketing scheme.

My suggestions (again): Either
a) make the definition fairly strict but quit browbeating people who
"push the envelope" (but then what do we do about the rows and rows of
combos that have *represented* homeopathy to many folks for many
years?) or

b) use--and publicize, and explain, and really make noise about the
importance of using--"modifiers" such as "classical", "combination",
"clinical", etc. Maybe there needs to be another category added, for
"medicines" that combine homeopathics with e.g. herbs, vitamins, drugs,
etc.? Yikes... Not to make a fuss about whether it's morally wrong
to make or use such things, but simply to have their track
records--and/or lack thereof--complicating the issue for homeopathy in
general?

Honestly, we *do* need a definition!!!!!

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

A friend just sent me this, which seems well worth following up on!
(And kudos to the Flower Essence people for standing up for the unity
among the fold...!)

Shannon
From: e-newsletters@flowersociety.org
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 5:01 PM
Subject: FES Member alert

[...]
We are writing to alert you to an article published in April Consumer
Reports that ridicules homeopathic medicine and, by implication, all
vibrational remedies.

The Organic Consumers Association is organizing a letter-writing
campaign protesting this article.

We urge you to join in this effort at
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?
campaign_KEY=24667

You can read the original Consumer Reports article here:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health ... c-rem.html

The article cites for its evidence a long discredited research study,
described here:
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticl ... 000060.htm

The Consumer Reports article is premised on the supposition that
without a biochemical mechanism of action, it is impossible for any
remedy to be effective. The author of this report looks only for
evidence to support this erroneous supposition, and dismisses
important scientific evidence that shows otherwise. The Consumer
Reports article violates the very foundation of scientific research by
ignoring the reality of the presenting phenomena; this logic is
tantamount to declaring: “If we don’t believe the sun can shine, then
we will ignore any evidence premised upon the reality of the shining
sun.”

The Flower Essence Society is strongly committed to scientific study of
flower essence therapy, through clinical case research, plant study and
well-designed comparative studies. The same bias that rejects
homeopathy also rejects flower essence therapy and it is important that
members of the Flower Essence Society voice their concern.

The future of flower essence therapy depends on the vital participation
of members like you who are willing to take action. We thank you for
your ongoing support.

Richard Katz and Patricia Kaminski

[Leilanae]

Hi Shannon,

This might address the "marketing" part of your email.

This is the link to the FDA site, Sec. 400.400 Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed (CPG 7132.15).
"DEFINITIONS:

The following terms are used in this document and are defined as follows:

1. Homeopathy: The practice of treating the syndromes and conditions which constitute disease with remedies that have produced similar syndromes and conditions in healthy subjects.

2. Homeopathic Drug: Any drug labeled as being homeopathic which is listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), an addendum to it, or its supplements. The potencies of homeopathic drugs are specified in terms of dilution, i.e., 1x (1/10 dilution), 2x (1/100 dilution), etc. Homeopathic drug products must contain diluents commonly used in homeopathic pharmaceutics. Drug products containing homeopathic ingredients in combination with non-homeopathic active ingredients are not homeopathic drug products."
There's lots more, an interesting read. Notice the word "active"? Zicam added
inactive ingredients.
However, it still doesn't help with defining the word "homeopathic". Remember when we were discussing burns and heat?

Leilanae