KEYWORDS: Homeopathy, Federal Trade Commission ruling; Bias, Vaccine safety; Federal agencies/bias; Scientific evidence

This article has been edited for length. The complete article with references is posted at www.townsendletter.com.

Extreme Bias in FTC’s Ruling on Homeopathic Medicine

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH

Despite the fact that there are over 300 clinical trials published in peer review medical journals, the U.S. government’s Federal Trade Commission¹ (FTC) has deemed homeopathic medicine to be unproven scientifically. This governmental agency will now require manufacturers of homeopathic medicines to provide the following two statements in their marketing of over-the-counter homeopathic medicines: (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.

Obvious evidence of the FTC’s bias in this ruling is that the word “homeopathy” was not even coined until 1805, and the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, MD, did not write his first book on the subject until 1810. The first homeopath to come to the USA wasn’t until 1825. And yet, the FTC asserts that homeopathy is based on theories from the 1700s?

The fact that the FTC is not being honest or accurate on historical facts will lead anyone to question whether they are honest or accurate in their assessment of homeopathic research. In actual fact, research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in many of the most respected medical journals in the world, including

The Lancet,^2,3

BMJ,^4,5 Chest⁶

(the publication of the American College of Chest Physicians),

Rheumatology⁷

(the publication of the British Society for Rheumatology),

Pediatrics⁸

(publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics),

Cancer⁹

(journal of the American Cancer Society),

Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal¹⁰

(publication of the European Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases),

European Journal of Pediatrics¹¹

(publication of the Swiss Society of Pediatrics and the Belgium Society of Pediatrics), and numerous others. And yet, the FTC insists that there is “no scientific evidence” that homeopathy works? Really, none?

It should also be noted that the prestigious World Health Organization (WHO) has deemed France to have the BEST health care in the world. It is therefore important to note that according to a recent survey published in the respected medical journal, Family Practice¹², 95% of French pediatricians, dermatologists, and general practitioners use homeopathic medicines. Further, 43% of all health and medical professionals prescribed at least one homeopathic medicine in a 12-month period. And ALL of these statistics were gathered from the government’s prescription records, making this data precise and accurate. The practice and usage of homeopathic medicine is also substantial in Germany, Italy, Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. And yet, homeopathy is “not accepted by most modern experts?” Is there absolutely no respect for minority schools of thought in medicine for the first time in medical history? Is conventional medicine so perfect that it can only allow for medical treatments that a majority of medical experts accept? Or…are there efforts influenced by Big Pharma to reduce competition in health care?

To be clear, the work of the FTC is vital for consumer protection; but it is clear that this governmental agency is ignoring important scientific evidence, and one must wonder if they are protecting Big Pharma from competition more than protecting the consumer.

To understand how and why the F.T.C. has such obvious bias against homeopathy (and various alternatives to Big Pharma), it is helpful to know something about history…and then, to learn something about the body of scientific evidence that presently exists for homeopathic medicines.

History of Attacks Against Homeopathy

Due to the impressive successes that physicians found from homeopathic medicines in the treatment of severe infectious disease epidemics in the 19th century, homeopathy grew so rapidly that the American Institute of Homeopathy was established as this country’s first national medical organization in 1844. A rival medical organization was formed just two years later asserting that one of the reasons for their formation was to slow the growth of homeopathy. That organization called itself the American Medical Association.

Homeopathy continued to grow in America in the 19th century and was called “the new school,” while conventional medicine was deemed to be “the old school.” By the early 20th century, there were 20 homeopathic medical schools in America, including Boston University, University of Michigan, Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, Hahnemann Medical College, and even the University of Iowa.

At the turn into the 20th century, George Simmons became the new President of the American Medical Association, and he devised a brilliant plan to make the AMA rich and powerful. Simmons created the AMA’s “Seal of Approval on Drugs.” To get this award, drug manufacturers did not require ANY evidence on safety or efficacy of drugs. Instead, the drug-maker simply needed to divulge the ingredients of their drug (an important consumer protection) AND, more importantly, they were required to pay for advertisements in EVERY local, regional, and national AMA publications (a legal form of bribery). This “collaboration” between the AMA and Big Pharma led to a significant increase in membership in the increasingly rich AMA, growing from 8,000 members in 1900 to over 70,000 members in 1910.

The “collaboration” between Big Pharma and government has been substantial in the 20th century and even more so in the 21^st century. In fact, for the past couple of decades, Big Pharma has spent almost 50% more (!) in lobbying politicians than the closest industry¹³ (the insurance industry). When you take this fact into account and then realize that Big Pharma spends its greatest amounts of advertising dollars for TV news programs, you can see and understand Big Pharma’s strategy to “own” the news and politicians. This strategy has worked too well.

*****

Homeopathic Research

Additional obvious bias was evidenced when the FTC’s ruling cited old and incorrect information asserting that homeopathic medicine is “so diluted that no single molecule of the original substance remains.” In actual fact, an important study in 2010 was published in the famed journal, Langmuir²⁰ (published by the American Chemistry Society), that verified that six different homeopathic medicine were found to have nanoparticles of the original medicinal agents even after they were diluted 1:100 two-hundred times and this fact was confirmed by three different types of spectroscopy. Further, the nanodoses that remained in water were, according to Archives in Internal Medicine,²¹ comparable to the nanodoses to which many common hormones and cell-signaling agents are known to operate. Based on this research, anyone who says that there are “no active ingredients” or “no molecules” in homeopathic medicines are basing such assertions on disproven theories, not scientifically verified facts.

Unless the FTC wishes to proclaim that our body’s hormones are placeboes, it can and should accept and recognize that the nanodoses used in homeopathic medicines have physiological action.

****

Implications of Ruling on Homeopathy Today

The FTC ruling will require the above described statements asserting that there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy of a homeopathic medicine. However, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines are single-ingredient homeopathic medicines that are not prescribed for specific diseases but for the unique syndrome of symptoms that every person has. And because the vast majority of practicing homeopaths use these single ingredient homeopathic medicines, the practice of homeopathy itself will not be influenced much by this FTC ruling.

In fact, some homeopaths actually appreciate this ruling because it’ll encourage people to understand homeopathy and the homeopathic approach to healing better. Further, the ruling will lead more people who are seeking safer alternatives to conventional drug treatment to purchase homeopathic guidebooks, such as those that this author has written, that teach people how to select the right homeopathic medicine for their own, their family’s, or their friend’s health care problem. Therefore, books such as Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines and Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants may be in greater demand. And people who want to learn to use a homeopathic medicine kit³⁴ to treat their families will be encouraged to access such courses or e-courses.

This ruling will have its primary impact on the various homeopathic formulas on the market today that make figuring out which medicine to get more “user-friendly.” Homeopathic formulas are mixtures of homeopathic medicines that include ingredients that are known to benefit people with specific ailments, but each ingredient is thought to only have benefits for the limited group of people whose symptoms match those that each substance is known to cause (if given in overdose). Therefore, a homeopathic pharmacy creates a mixture with ingredients that will have a more broad-spectrum effect beyond that of a single remedy.

It is these homeopathic formulas that the FTC ruling will impact. However, because there are now over 300 clinical trials published in peer-review medical journals, there are a surprising number of studies that show that homeopathic formulas do provide therapeutic benefits. The FTC ruling, therefore, will have some benefits for those homeopathic medicines that have had such research. Certain books or ebooks that reference such research will probably increase in demand. And courses and e-courses that teach people how to use a homeopathic medicine kit and that provide evidence from peer-review medical journals will also be more popular.

The bad news about the FTC. ruling is that poor people who cannot afford going to a professional homeopath and those people who are not motivated to learn how to use homeopathic medicines will be unable to get the benefits from homeopathy like 500 million people across the world do.

It is additionally intriguing to know that every one of the dozens of surveys ever conducted on who uses homeopathic medicines has discovered that these homeopathy users are more educated than those who don’t.³⁵ Therefore, it seems that it is common for more educated people to go out of their way to choose homeopathy.

Closing Thoughts

The FTC report on homeopathy³⁶ noted a survey of users of homeopathic medicine found that 60% to 73% were satisfied with the performance of the homeopathic treatment they used and half of the people who used a homeopathic medication for one condition went on to use a homeopathic treatment for other conditions.

The report then noted that a representative of the homeopathic industry remarked that such levels of satisfaction would not be explained by the placebo effect³⁷ based on his assertion that the “placebo effect … is probably around 30%” (see p. 5) When one considers the widely recognized fact that homeopathic medicines are considerably safer than conventional drugs, one would think that this system of medicine would be embraced and encouraged by federal regulatory agencies, especially for pregnant and lactating women and for infants and children. However, this FTC ruling suggests that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works.

Even though other constituencies of the “natural health movement” have not had a collaborative relationship with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the 20th and 21st centuries, homeopathy and advocates for this system of medicine have had a long-time collaborative relationship with this governmental agency ever since this health agency was first empowered with regulatory controls as a result of the famed Federal Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1938.

In fact, this 1938 law was written by a senator from New York who was a medical doctor as well as homeopathic physician by the name of Royal Copeland, MD. This three-term US senator was so highly respected that Franklin D. Roosevelt was his campaign manager when he first ran for the US Senate. This 1938 law not only empowered the FDA, it also gave formal federal recognition to homeopathy and homeopathic medicines as a different and separate system of medicine and pharmacology.

The bottom line here is that the US Congress passed this important consumer protection law in 1938, and it granted formal recognition of the US Homeopathic Pharmacopeia as a DIFFERENT compendium of drugs than the US Pharmacopeia. This law did not seek to merge these two different schools of thought in medical practice; but, instead, it sought to respect them as different and complementary. It is, therefore, questionable if homeopathic drugs should be understood or regulated in the same manner as conventional drugs.

One would hope that the FTC would have a good working relationship with the homeopathic community as the FDA has, but the fact remains that the new FTC ruling now requires marketing information on homeopathic medicines to include statements that there is “no scientific evidence that the product works” and the product’s claims “are not accepted by most modern medical experts.” The intent of this article was to show the extreme bias in their recent ruling, in their evidence from history, and their interpretation of homeopathic research.

Ultimately, the FTC is staffed by lawyers, not by physicians or scientists or experts on homeopathy and natural medicine. Clearly, this FTC report has numerous significant errors of fact and has obvious biases. One would hope that these problems will be rectified.

Whether the FTC corrects its report and changes its ruling or not, it will be curious to watch if the FTC and health and medical regulatory agencies continue to protect Big Pharma and Big Corporations or if they will truly seek to protect consumers.

It will also be important, even vitally important, to observe what priority the FTC grants this new ruling on homeopathy. In this day and age in which the average American is prescribed 13 prescription drugs per year³⁸ (not counting any of the over-the-counter drugs they are prescribed or that people take on their own), there are very few studies that confirm the safety or efficacy of this common practice of “poly-pharmacy.” If regulatory agencies are truly interested in protecting the health of Americans, it would be prudent if they focused their attention on the real and significant dangers to American’s health that exist in our use and over-use of conventional medications, not on homeopathic medicines that has an impeccable 200-year history of safety.

Finally, the FTC chose to issue these rulings after Donald Trump has been elected President. Trump has asserted that he plans to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation.³⁹ Is this new regulation really worthy of keeping when two other regulations will be eliminated? Considering the long-time safety history of homeopathic medicines, it is surprising and even shocking that the FTC would consider proposing new regulations now. One cannot help but wonder who or what is pulling their strings. Only the naïve think that policies result in a vacuum; more commonly, they result from powerful economic forces at play.