It seems to me that the discussions of Homeopathy being effective or not as well as discussions of mechanisms of action are ultimately silly.

Why does the Homeopathic community not petition the FDA to mandate the testing for efficacy of Homeopathic remedies? There would be properly designed, objective trials with proper oversight.

The results would speak for themselves. How could anyone have a problem with that?

Sabastian, it would be wonderful if FDA undertakes such a project to determine the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. This way we would have a very competent and objective(hopefully) third party to examine this matter and rule on it. I am wondering whether the homeopathic community is ready to go in this direction. It certainly would help in minimizing the controversy which goes with the present state of homeopathy and, if the findings are favorable, it will elevate its image, status, and acceptance. Finally, there would be no pressing reasons for members and others to indulge in mud slinging and other unkind remarks while discussing/debating homeopathic matters.

Well, presumably, it would be the manufacturers of remedies who would foot the bill under the eye of the FDA. I just do not understand why the Homeopathic community is not screaming for this type of recognition. After all, if the stuff works you should go for it.

I also do not understand why no one else has posted on this thread.

Dear Sebastian,

Please, check the thread "DOes Homeopathy want to enter Medical Science", maybe you'll find a hint why nobody posted here (so far, I have to add).

Best wishes,

Elena

Don't you feel that this suggetion is also equally applicable on all the so called alternative therapies & spritual systems. Regulatory bodies will be going to get some big job.

However as for as I think, regulatory authorities should be more involved in toxic & harmfull substances instead of looking at all substances for thier better utilizations.

At home of a host, it may not be appropriate that 'Guest' harm or disrespect him,which I think is a honesty.Justified indicating something for the benifit of the host can be a repayment of his obligation on the guest. [img]redface.gif[/img]

[ 16. October 2003, 10:09: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Just to clear up something:

The FDA does not undertake testing. It is purely an auditing body. So manufacturers would have to document the effects of each medicine and apply for approval (assuming they were to be marketed in the same way as "allopathic" medicine).

Manufacturers would also come under obligation to have quality assurance systems, validated production processes, etc. In other words, they would have to comply with what is called "current good manufacturing practice" (cGMP).

The fuss is IMHO mainly about two things:

1) The above demands would would probably make light among manufacturers. If for no other reason, then because of the cost incurred.

2) Some homeopaths are of the opinion that the paradigms of homeopathy are simply too different from those of mainstream medicine for such tests to be practicable. For instance, the definition of disease differ greatly.


Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Homeopathic medicines are already recognized as drugs in the US.

Imposing the conventional medical "trial" on homeopathic drugs will not work and will not show anyone anything concrete--except that homeopathic principles are different and must be applied differently for results to be present.

Here is an analogy:

If you were to take anti-biotics or steroids (the 2 big choices for treatment in conventional medicine) and use them in ways in which they were not intended for use, they would fail in performance.

If you treated 20 people who suffered from depression with anti-biotics, chances are quite good that all 20 people would still suffer depression unabated after that trial.

Likewise, if you take a random group of people who all have allergies and give them all a homeopathic remedy that you arbitrarily determine is good for allergies, chances are excellent very few people would undergo any improvement.

Homeopathic remedies must be chosen and applied in a very specific, individualised way. If the "test" were constructed around these principles, then you would very likely have quite a successful "study". Boiron, one of the largest and oldest homeopathic laboratories in the world, conducted one such study with a remedy they call Oscillococcinum--this is the homeopathic remedy Anas Barbaritae 200c. Taken at exactly the right time, when it matches exactly the right set of symptoms at the onset of a flu, it works effectively (that is, stopping the flu in its tracks, cold, never to return) for 70% of the test subjects. Just google Boiron's webpage, they publish this information freely.

In order for a test to be relevant, it has to take into consideration at the very least the way homeopaths would select and apply remedies. Homeopathy is not just its drugs: homeopathy is also the method of understanding the patient, understanding health and disease, and being able to make concrete observations in order to match symptom similarity for each individual patient. If any of these elements are missing, you are not practicing homeopathy--and tests which don't take this into consideration simply aren't "testing homeopathy." They are applying potentized remedies randomly, in an attempt to see if applying allopathic principles with them will yield any results. They won't.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Some related links are;

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/departs/1997/397_form.html
http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_re...pg400-400.html

http://www.homeowatch.org/

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi92-10a.html

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

CHaCHaHeels:

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

It may be no serious problem for testing, Hans, but historically leaving out these prerequisites has ALWAYS been the casis the norm. Then, people conclude that the homeopathic remedy doesn't work.

The usual test: a bunch of people, random age, usually male, say, with a toothache from nerve damage. Or joint pain from arthritis.

All will be given something like Arnica, cause its a well known remedy and familiar to many allopaths (many cosmetic surgeons use it pre-and post op--in which case it can work becaue of its effect on soft tissue, blood vessels, bruising, and scar tissue repair. It can also relieve a great deal of pain). It will be used because "it can relieve pain."

Well, arnica does indeed relieve pain--but you must match the remedy to the correct tissue it affects, the correct type of pain, the correct aetiology, and other similar symptoms. No one conducting the test bothers to do this, and the remedy is given to all test subjects in a way that no homeopath would ever use the remedy.

My favourite tests are the ones where they say they are giving a homeopathic remedy--and then use either a nutritional supplement or an herbal decoction, and incorrectly call it homeopathy. This is the second most frequent kind of test--and you can see that its based on pure ignorance about homeopathy, as well as pure ignorance about nutrition, and pure ignorance about botanical medicine.

Just off hand, better tests are conducted and peer reviewed regarding homeopathy by The Lancet.
You can go on to google and search out some of their published articles and tests on the efficacy of homeopathic remedies--but be sure to check the standards of the trial. Not all of them are well conducted, nor do they take into account the proper use of the remedies and homeopathic principles governing use.
As in assessing every study, you have to determine who conducts it, how it is conducted, and how all its variables are weighed and controlled. Most of the double blind tests imposed on homeopathy aren't legitimate--but then again, many medical journals actually denounce these "double blind" studies conducted on conventional medicines too.

And actually, the FDA does accept the remedies, and they are part of the legitimate pharmacopeia of medicines which can be sold in the US. This is not because they are considered "harmless", but because homeopathy was once the mainstream medicine in North America, and homeopathic schools, doctors, and laboratories laboured to have these medicines and their creation and use protected by law.

[ 16. October 2003, 23:07: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung