Homeopathic nutritionist?

ronjsteele1 wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

Brand new rules just put in place by the Federal Trade Commission:

"Over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’."

https://scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_HLTH_NEWS

This does not sound accurate. The label changes made recently pertain only to how remedy vials are sealed. I am forwarding the article to someone I know that operates in that arena for their verification. There are a number of things that are very inaccurate coming out of Australia of late that many are taking to apply to the US. I'll see what I can find out about this.

Yes, the quote from the article seems to be a bit of an exaggeration, especially taken out of the context of the sentence that follows: "Failure to do so will mean the makers of homeopathic remedies will risk running afoul of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC)." That is, there is no mandate to put the warning on the label (the FTC tends to work through case-by-case enforcement, not through prescriptive rules), but a lawyer reading the enforcement guidance might well advise a client marketing homeopathic products to include the warning to reduce enforcement risk.

The FTC recently put out an enforcement advisory that although in the past it "has rarely challenged misleading claims for products that were homeopathic or purportedly homeopathic," there is no basis under its authorizing statute to treat claims made for homeopathic drugs differently than claims made for other health products, and that it will "carefully scrutinize the net impression of OTC homeopathic advertising or other marketing employing disclosures to ensure that it adequately conveys the extremely limited nature of the health claim being asserted."

As for the efficacy of homeopathic drugs, the FTC says, "For the vast majority of OTC homeopathic drugs, the case for efficacy is based solely on traditional homeopathic theories and there are no valid studies using current scientific methods showing the product’s efficacy. Accordingly, marketing claims that such homeopathic products have a therapeutic effect lack a reasonable basis and are likely misleading in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act," which prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or business practices, such as deceptive advertising or labeling of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, and false advertising for foods, drugs, medical devices, health services, or cosmetics.

However, it also says that "the promotion of an OTC homeopathic product for an indication that is not substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence may not be deceptive if that promotion effectively communicates to consumers that: (1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works and (2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts."

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdf

janejellyroll wrote: »

ronjsteele1 wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

Brand new rules just put in place by the Federal Trade Commission:

"Over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’."

https://scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_HLTH_NEWS

This does not sound accurate. The label changes made recently pertain only to how remedy vials are sealed. I am forwarding the article to someone I know that operates in that arena for their verification. There are a number of things that are very inaccurate coming out of Australia of late that many are taking to apply to the US. I'll see what I can find out about this.

I've read multiple news reports that report essentially the same thing as this Scientific American article. Do you have any reason to doubt these multiple reports, based on this 24-page FTC report (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-homeopathic-medicine-advertising-workshop/p114505_otc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_report.pdf), aside from your feeling that it doesn't "sound accurate"?

I believe my post said it sounded inaccurate but I would verify. I doubt most stuff coming out of mags like SA. As someone that practices in this realm, I had not heard this yet and was surprised by it. But I've also been very busy and not reading a lot of what comes my way right now in terms of articles. This has not filtered down past hpaths yet - it is just starting to.

I went through both of these carefully and had the article reviewed by my friend in this business. The way the article is written they make it sound mandatory. It is not (viewed deep within the working group report). The FTC group did not say hpathy is placebo effect. Their contention was if they are going to be consistent with other supplements and claims that they make requiring the statement that the FDA has not verified supplement statements, then they have to be consistent with hpathy remedies. It had nothing to do with whether or not they endorse or believe in hpathy. I'm sure they don't. But that was not the basis for this decision. I also don't think they believe in using supplements for treating anything either but they still require labeling for them. So people can read into this what they want, but it does not say what this article says it does (does not surprise me).

What the article is stating HAS to be on the remedies was only an example given by the FTC that basically the companies could say what they wanted so long as they essentially communicate the same standard that is communicated with other supplements that are not FDA endorsed. They might certainly believe what they wrote as an example, but SA did not write the article such that they said this was an example given by the FTC. They wrote it as fact. SA slanted much?

I do find it interesting that someone would post an article negative to hpathy and everyone finds it acceptable but post an article positive about hpathy and it's not considered scientific evidence. The OP of the magazine article would have been less hypocritical to post the working group and FTC pages. But then again, hypocrisy mostly reigns here.

It will be interesting to watch what a couple of the main companies do with this. It has no effect on hpathy pharmacies selling to practitioners. It will only affect what is sold OTC. Most certainly the 2% of the country that uses hpathy for health care will eventually all be watching this with interest. I find it curious that with so little people in the US using hpathy, and FDA and FTC not "endorsing" it, that anyone would even worry about labeling - unless of course they are concerned that too much money is being lost to the medical world by the people using hpathy. What would be the point? If they think people are wasting their money, what do they care? This is a free country. People waste their money on lots of things. They already stated in the FTC report that adverse effects were almost never reported from its use so that can't be their motivation. Always follow the money...... I wonder what these people in these agencies do with doctors that are both MD's and practice hpathy with their patients? Must put them in a real conundrum.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/11/otc-homeopathic-drugs-established-ftc-proof-standards-apply

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-homeopathic-medicine-advertising-workshop/p114505_otc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_report.pdf

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.

For one second, their job is not about making sure consumers aren't "deceived." Their job is to protect standard medical practice (and the AMA which buys and owns the FDA, FTC, etc.) from being encroached on with other things that work for diseases. When the government feels the need to protect people from their own decisions, then they don't believe much in freedom. And that's what the FTC's labeling decision is 100% about. If it causes companies to go out of business or people to not have access OTC to medicines they wish to use, then they are limiting the choice of medical freedom. People should have not only the freedom to choose what form of medicine they use, but to accept the consequences of their choices as well. When you remove those things, then you remove half the brain of the electorate. You can remove the word "medicine" and put just about any one thing in it's place and this still applies.

The bottom line here is no one is shoving alternative medical practices down anyone's throat. People do have the right to have access to learning and using whatever they want for medicine. Informed consent doesn't mean the right to be informed only about what the government thinks "works" just because they don't understand it. It means the right to know and learn about whatever they desire to for medical care and then make their decision based on what they've learned. If the FTC can require their statement of inefficacy, then remedy manufacturers have the right to make their statement for efficacy. Let the person decide who they want to believe.

Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked. A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works, but enough people use it and it works, that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold). And they continue to study the "whys." If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use? Not on your life. It's all about the money and always will be........

Nonetheless, this decision was made and those of us that support and use it will continue to.

OP, I hope you are able to get this straightened out to your satisfaction.

Well - I've never been to a homeopath. Although I've used homeopathic remedies. Which worked for me. **shrugs**

OP - I agree with the others who have told you to run, not walk, away from this quack you had an unfortunate encounter with.

If you have concerns about your four year old's diet and/or the safety of the changes you've made (and whether or not any modifications need to be made to make your diet appropriate for your child), seems to me it would be best to start with a pediatrician. They will actually take a history, weigh and measure the child, track growth and development, and can give good basic advice about appropriate dietary choices for your son. If you still have concerns you can ask the doctor for a referral to an actual registered dietician who can work with you to come up with a plan that will be safe and appropriate for your child.

Good luck!