Every homeopathic eye drop should be pulled off the market, FDA says

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/every-homeopathic-eye-drop-should-be-pulled-off-the-market-fda-says/

by dev_tty01 • 3 years ago

120 57 3 years ago

Detrytus• 3 years ago

Homeopathy is a scam. We should stop pretending it has anything to do with real medicine and pull it off the pharmacies.

acchow• 3 years ago

I’ve noticed that even herbal remedies are labeled as homeopathic. Is that to address a larger market?

nearting3• 3 years ago

It might draw in potential customers who believe in it, yes. Or it might give manufacturers the cover to not include any quantity of said herbs in the product.

financltravsty9• 3 years ago

No more a scam than SSRIs. There’s an undercurrent within some research groups (a woman at Oxford, whose name escapes me at the moment) pushing forward research into the placebo effect and its mediation via — I want to say — the peripheral nervous system, lending some credence towards sham treatments like chiropractic practice.

Along with the likes of osteopathy, homeopathy is one of the forgotten forms of medicine. Allopathy, in this day and age, is criminal. Lots of elective surgeries that do nothing more than line pockets of medical device manufacturers, fleece the elderly, and bring prestige to aristocrat wannabes (certain doctors). That is saying nothing about the endemic of overprescription of psychoactive drugs like stimulants, and the rest.

Though that’s not to say homeopathy or osteopathy is any better. Once a field with research and experimentation, now relegated to fraudulent shamanism.

There’s a lot of lost knowledge from the 19th century that hasn’t been passed down, nor digitized. Some of it remains in libraries here and there.

nearting3• 3 years ago

This argument is essentially whataboutism - any issues in the practice of modern evidence-based medicine does not in any way validate the efficacy of homeopathy or similar pseudoscientific approaches. On top of that, arguing that most medical recommendations are unnecessary and overpriced doesn't help the case of homeopathy or chiropractic either - I mean, at that point, why charge patients any more than the cost of sugar or a short massage?

atlas_hugged• 3 years ago

Bruh what?

mock-possum• 3 years ago

Sorry, what? How are SSRIs a scam?

tomatotomato31• 3 years ago

When you say placebo effect you also have to say nocebo effect.

And placebo even work for some if they know it.

Which means we can easily give recommendations for modern placebo which is actually cheap to buy and produce.

But the homeopatie shit is for sure also responsible for the people not believing in corona etc.

consumer4512• 3 years ago

I would agree, I mean of course.

Except, doesn’t the placebo effect have something like a 50% efficacy rate for many ills? I always felt like that can’t be right. Is it?

I had figured that this was how homeopathy “worked.”

mips_r4300i2• 3 years ago

A common number for improvements in outcome by placebo is typically 20%. Significant, but not a game changer.

consumer4512• 3 years ago

Too late to edit, but I just to make clear that I think homeopathy is a total scam.

winternett3• 3 years ago

The premise driving homeopathy is that modern medicine has harmful side effects, and it's also not quite trustworthy even when the FDA approves it. The shear cases of big industry drug settlements and major pharmaceuticals being pulled from shelves is proof that the entire industry of home medicine needs a serious reevaluation.

There have been natural cures to many illnesses, like using witch Hazel for ear infections, that should not be simply thrown out, as those cures work much better, and with far less side effects, than taking pills. Big industry loves to suppress information about affordable cures, because it cuts into their profits.

I think regulating the profitability and effectiveness of both homeopathy and big pharma is the best move to make sure that cures are valid, but I also think both sciences/practices should be allowed to exist when they are proven, because ultimately, we as humans stand to benefit from having the option of either for our best life/health outcomes overall.

QuadmasterXLII• 3 years ago

When you say Homeopathy, do you mean 10X dillutions, like opposes like, water memory etc? If not, what do you mean?

mminer237• 3 years ago

There have been natural cures to many illnesses, like using witch Hazel for ear infections

Yes, that is called real medicine though. That has nothing to do with homeopathy.

Georgelemental2• 3 years ago

The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy person can treat conditions and diseases that involve that same symptom, and the "law of infinitesimals," which states that diluting the substance renders it more potent.

These "principles" are actually true sometimes, to a certain extent in specific cases. Vaccines, for example, or hormesis. Similarly, bloodletting as practiced in the Middle Ages was actually the right treatment for a few specific diseases. But when these concepts become disconnected from empirical reality and turn into sacred doctrine, that's when the trouble starts.

hn_acker• 3 years ago

> The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy person can treat conditions and diseases that involve that same symptom, and the "law of infinitesimals," which states that diluting the substance renders it more potent.
These "principles" are actually true sometimes, to a certain extent in specific cases. Vaccines, for example, or hormesis.

You're being too charitable with "true sometimes", in my opinion. I've unbent a paper clip into a nearly straight strip of aluminum before. The result was a "paper clip" in name and origin only. I would call it a "paper clip" for convenience, and I might jokingly consider it a paper clip "to a certain extent". But calling the strip a paper clip wouldn't be useful unless I were to describe it as "a paper clip if I bend it back into the original shape". The "law of similars" and the "law of infinitesimals" as described by the article are like the straightened "paper clip": understandable generalizations from a practical truth, but too far from the initial practical truth for "true sometimes" to be a useful rule of thumb. (It is useful, however, to find out how a useless "principle" came about.)

A vaccine is not a cure. It's training for the immune system. The response to small amounts of a harmful substance can prepare the body to respond more quickly and/or more correctly to a future exposure. Giving yourself a vaccine while you're already infected with the virus would have little benefit if any. I could call a vaccine a cure "to some extent" if I wanted to be broad with my definitions, but would it be useful to do so? Not to me, so I might as well not call a vaccine a cure at all.

Hormesis is less about "small amounts can be more potent than large amounts" than "small amounts can actually help you at all compared to large amounts".

nearting3• 3 years ago

This argument is essentially "a broken clock is right twice a day - so if your clock is broken, don't bother fixing it".

Georgelemental2• 3 years ago

I'm not arguing in favor of homeopathy at all, quite the opposite! It's nonsense, banning it is good IMO. Just pointing out that the nonsense has origins in something sensible.

jiggawatts• 3 years ago

The most charitable explanation I heard was that homeopathy was developed in an era when insanely toxic substances like mercury salts were regularly used as medicine.

Someone noticed that using “less concentrated medicine” resulted in healthier patients. Then obviously even less concentrated medicine “worked” better, and so on…

You can easily see how a simple logical extrapolation from there would result in ardent believers of homeopathy.

(To make matters worse: Simply hydrating patients with water is a fairly effective treatment all by itself!)

arp242• 3 years ago

Not really, because "like cure like" in homeopathy is based on symptoms only, whereas vaccination isn't.

Some things may be slightly superficially similar by pure coincidence, because there's a large amount of things in the world and there's always something that's accidentally similar, but this kind of observation is meaningless and devoid of any value.

roydivision• 3 years ago

At the very least pharmacies should be prevented from selling anything as medicine that isn't backed by proper science. Pharmacies should be trustworthy establishments, by selling this garbage they are as complicit in this whole scam as the manufacturers.

And although placebo is a scientifically proven effect, it is not a label for quackery to hide behind.

timthelion• 3 years ago

Yes I strongly agree. I remember a friend bought coloidal silver cleansing spray at a pharmacy. She thought it was a normal antiseptic spray and used it to clean her kids wounds. She was very surprised when I explained it was just overpriced distilled water. I'm in Europe so there were no health claims on the packaging but other than that there wasno way to know. It is especially confusing in that case since silver is a real antiseptic, so it's not like obviously non plausible.

tengwar22• 3 years ago

Colloidal silver is not a homeopathic medicine. It was briefly in vogue in the days before sulphanilamide and antibiotics, and some wound dressings contain silver. It works by giving bacteria heavy metal poisoning.

Some people make the stuff themselves and drink it, which over time can give one argyria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria). Definitely not a good idea to do that, but I suspect for putting on minor wounds this might be more a case of "there are better solutions".

browningstreet• 3 years ago

I don’t know where you are but in the US pharmacies wouldn’t sell homeopathic eye drops, but the drug store in which the pharmacy operates would.

derbOac• 3 years ago

I increasingly feel sort of isolated in my concerns about this sort of thing and how they are framed, and what it says about the power of the FDA and problems it might lead to in other areas.

I think homeopathy is nonsense really, has no scientific evidence in its support, and makes no physical or biological sense.

At the same time, I believe if someone wants to place such products on their shelves, they should be able to. In my opinion it doesn't matter if there is any placebo effect, or any effect of any kind, as long as the contents are correctly labeled and are uncontaminated.

The lead-up in this piece is misleading. Yes, there have been problems with a number of eye drop products. But — and this is critical — those products were not homeopathic, and still had problems. That is, the homeopathic nature of the products was irrelevant to their safety.

So now we're in a situation where, instead of aggressively pursuing eyedrop contamination in general, the FDA is focusing on the putative purpose of the eyedrops, which has nothing to do with the underlying problem.

Meanwhile, we're facing ongoing problems with contaminated generic medications, that have been going on for years or even the scale of decades even (it's turned into an interesting exercise, Google "Indian generic medication" at any random time of any year and see what the latest scandal is; e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-04/big-ph...). These scandals, in contrast to homeopathy, seem to get slaps on the wrist from the FDA without any dramatic calls for complete market removal, because they somehow fit in the schema for science-based medicine. Homeopathic products with no evidence of active harm must be removed from the market because they have no efficacy, but tainted medications that are killing people or landing them in the hospital year after year are ok.

Homeopathy and the FDA is an odd topic for me, because although I think homeopathy is completely unscientific nonsense, by the same token I also suspect it shouldn't be actively harmful unless there's a different problem, which should really be the focus. I guess I have problems with an agency regulating with reference to intended purpose rather than purity and safety, because for me there's a direct line from that to a failed drug wars, lack of access to needed medications due to overregulation, treatment protocols lacking in scientific or ethical rigor that become de facto standards, and inequities in medical care.

I was expecting an article about how the FDA found homeopathic eye drops in particular as a class of eye drops to be systemically contaminated, and how they were going to pull them off the market until manufacturers complied with safety inspections. But that's not what I found at all.

Put it a different way: what is the actual safety concern about these eyedrops? Is it about the homeopathy, or contamination? Is it possible for homeopathy per se to be unsafe? Which, then, should be the real focus of the FDA?

amazonslave4• 3 years ago

I find your opinion here fascinating and value your perspective! It's neat to debate which kind of 'scam' is worse. Every value proposition for health supplements/medicine has 3 parts: 1. Features (what it is: ingredient, quality, purity, potency etc) 2. Advantages (how does its mechanism of action work and how is it unique/better than alternatives) 3. Benefits (why does the consumer care because it relieves pains or acquires gains)

I agree with you that 'scams' that target the Features (like the fake/counterfeit generics example) are terrible and we should aggressively go after this type of scam. However, had those Features been real, the Advantages and Benefits of those generics probably had good evidence/support. Just because you got fake pills, doesn't mean that the real ones don't work well.

But Homeopathic medicines ALWAYS have Advantages and Benefits problems. Even if the Features are okay, and you get exactly what you expected, the mechanism of action will never work and you will never get the benefits more than a placebo. If any marketing convinces you otherwise (like the label or having shelf space at CVS in the 'eye care' aisle), then you are a victim of another type of 'scam'. Homeopathic products, as far as an rigorous research is concerned, always have Advantages/Benefits problems.

On one hand, regulating Features is maybe easier for a government to do and that is an argument for limiting the scope to Features issues. However, the health and monetary costs of products with fake Advantages/Benefits is undoubtedly many years of life and billions of dollars, so there will be pressure to regulate. (maybe you disagree with the costs/externalities here)

It's definitely an interesting discussion. Hopefully smart people are working on getting real data about the pros and cons!

sidgarimella• 3 years ago

This is the only measured take I’ve read in these comments.

If a sugar pill makes a lot of people feel better they should by every means have access to it. Within scientifically proven and “understood” mechanisms of action there are a litany of misunderstandings and MoA’s that are total guesses that folks seem so eager to dismiss in hindsight relative to homeopathy in particular. Every exception to the rule gets pulled out of the book when it comes to misrepresenting safety and efficacy for the newest juice big pharma’s pushing, like there was some sort of update to the collective consciousness rather than cheap lies and misrepresentations.

It’s silly how polarized and fixated people and western administrations are on this large quadrant of “relatively harmless, many people think it does some good”. Like it’s some low hanging fruit always there to punch down to.

Regardless, the vast majority of folks I know using homeopathy don’t actively ignore other options or deny other forms of treatment at all– if anything they respect it more and approach powerful drugs with a prudence I believe is important to preserve.

torpfactory• 3 years ago

I think pharmacies should have two sections: one for drugs that have been scientifically studied and are FDA approved. Another section (separate aisle) for all the bullshit supplements with a big disclaimer (sometimes called the quack miranda warning): "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." Right now these products are often co-mingled.

amazonslave4• 3 years ago

I think some people in this thread are saying there are 3 categories, not 2.

Every medicine/supplement/remedy makes 3 claims:

1. Features ('What' it is - ingredient identity, potency, purity, quality) 2. Advantages ('How' it works and how it is different - the 'mechanism of action') 3. Benefits ('Why' the consumer cares - pain avoiders and gain creators)

So, there are 3 distinct categories:

1. regulated Pharmaceuticals should have good evidence for Features, Advantages, and Benefits

2. Unregulated 'Nutraceuticals/dietary supplements' often have good evidence for Features and Advantages, that is they have SOME mechanism of action that does something, but sometimes they fail to deliver on Benefits (especially big marketing claims).

3. Homeopathic remedies and similar do not deliver on Advantages or Benefits. Sometimes they don't even deliver on Features (they have different ingredients than what they claim). These do not have a mechanism of action that makes any sense whatsoever. You couldn't even run a good Randomized double blind placebo controlled study if you wanted to because the proposed mechanism makes almost zero sense.

'pharmaceuticals' and 'nutraceuticals/dietary supplements' can both have legitimate mechanism of actions for them with good studies. Fish oil, Creatine, Protein Powder, and similar supplements all have very well-studied mechanisms of action (Advantages) for the benefits they provide.

I understand that there are tons of scammy supplements, but they need to be treated differently than homeopathic remedies by consumers. One should be taken seriously, but treated skeptically, and the other should be dismissed from first principles.

tengwar22• 3 years ago

Agreed. An example of 2 is colchicine, thought to be the oldest drug still in use. It's an ancient Greek flower remedy, and the standard treatment for gout flares. It has long been known to be very effective, and also toxic. It was only in the past couple of decades that a formal trial was done in the USA, based on some legislation which gave the company a monopoly on the drug - which is now fantastically expensive in the USA. Elsewhere it costs pennies.

eyesarered• 3 years ago

Damn, I've used msm drops and a few other homeopathic eye drops.

I'll throw this out into the ether... maybe someone else has experienced it.

Because I wore contacts too small in diameter the whites of my eyes now have extremely prominent red veins. There is no cure for this condition except a very expensive and barbaric procedure from a Beverly hills doctor. It's an extremely risky procedure that can cause all kinds of problems to the eye.

I'm quite surprised there isn't a cure for this, many people have these veins.

Anyway, I've tried every drop, supplement, and odd thing you can try to try and look like a person that isn't high or drunk 24/7.

You would be surprised how something so small can affect a persons confidence. If you have semi white eyes thank the Lord above and be careful wearing contacts.

Also if anyone has any suggestions I'm all ears.

Every homeopathic eye drop should be pulled off the market, FDA says

Related Stories