Friends,
Just a nascent reminder that in the U.S. there appears to be more amazing FDA support for homeopathy statutorily than is commonly thought.
Out of my 150 blogs this has been the most widely read:
https://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/fda-approves-homeopathic-ebola-cure/
love, John
PS: If you’re not already a subscriber to The John Benneth Journal, please click on the SUBSCRIBE button in the upper right hand corner . .
ENCOURAGEMENT
No one needs to get fired, no one has to get angry and no one needs to be sad. Homeopathy has something for everyone, especially those who think homeopathy is a scam, the Atheists who have been second in the denial of it only to Anglo-American medical professionals (the Europeans and Indians love it)
Homeopathy in intensive care has cut septic shock deaths in half, but Anglo-American docs scoff despite their high death rates. For homeopathic treament of sepsis see Frass M., Bundner M. Homeopathy in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, 535 pages
But this can change. Atheists hate homeopathy because they worship science, and not knowing the science behind it they thinkthe pharmacy is inert. They think the solute molecule disappears due to dilution, when in fact it is “quantumized,” ionized into plasma by dissociation into the diluent as a perpetuating entangled wave.
Some people just need to shut up about homeopathy until they learn more about it and it’s actual chemistry . . how and what makes it work.
A reasonable question to ask is how is it that there can be a highly advanced 200 year old curative chemistry and such vituperative theories against it by people who know so little about it?
Why are some doctors reporting its use to cure sepsis when all else fails, and others suppressing its use?
It’s like astrology, but much more threatening to the actual pseudoscientist: The denial of it is a projection of pseudoscience made by arrogant, lazy, narcissistic, purposely ignorant people who, when faced with a dynamic data set they won’t quite get their heads around, hide behind a facade of what they call science.
DR. PAUL MORGAN, intensivist and lead sepsis consultant at Cardiff University Hospital, Wales, is vehemently opposed to homeopathy, posting over 122,000 tweets on Twitter harassing homeopaths for “evidence.”
To really understand homeopathy you have to understand what the word does and does not mean and take the evidence of its action seriously. Too often its taken to be synonymous with herbal medicine. While it does, among other things animal and mineral, make use of ionized extracts from vegetable sources, it’s much more than than that. But before we go any further, it should be pointed out that proof for homeopathy is iron clad: Homeopathy as a doctrine and homeopathy as a distinct, separate pharmacy (and the overwhelming amount of literature supporting its use) are sanctioned in and by law. If this was better known and understood the contention over it would be over . . in court, and perhaps the war against homeopaths, the interference with trade, solicitations of malice, disinformation and libel would come to an end.
THE LAW
The U.S. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act regulates and protects homeopathy and the use of its pharmaceuticals by statute.
The following is a killshot on any mouth-bubbling argument by pathological “scientists” who think homeopathic medicines are inert:
CPG Sec. 400.400 Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed
“Section 201(g)(1) of the Act defines the term “drug” to mean articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopeia (USP), the official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), or official National Formulary (NF) or any supplement to them; and articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or the prevention of disease in man or other animals; articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in the above. Whether or not they are official homeopathic remedies, those products offered for the cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of disease conditions are regarded as drugs within the meaning of Section 201(g)(l) of the Act.
“Homeopathic drugs generally must meet the standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. Section 501(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 351) provides in relevant part:
“Whenever a drug is recognized in both the United States Pharmacopeia and the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States it shall be subject to the requirements of the United States Pharmacopeia unless it is labeled and offered for sale as a homeopathic drug, in which case it shall be subject to the provisions of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and not to those of the United States Pharmacopeia.
“A product’s compliance with requirements of the HPUS, USP, or NF does not establish that it has been shown by appropriate means to be safe, effective, and not misbranded for its intended use.
“A guide to the use of homeopathic drugs (including potencies, dosing, and other parameters) may be found by referring to the following texts: A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D., (3 volumes; Health Science Press) and A Clinical Repertory to the Dictionary of Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D. (Health Science Press). These references must be reviewed in conjunction with other available literature on these drug substances.” for whole statute click here
Perhaps it would serve honest inquiry to explore Clarke. Why does the U.S. FDCA make this reference?
Homeopathy, the legal view.
The case against it picks up steam
Here we go again . .
After 200 years of phenomenal growth, clinical use for over 70,000 symptoms and superior results in epidemics and popularity among loyal users, there is still great opposition, it would seem, to homeopathy.
Here’s the latest. Apparently some jurist pedant in Australia has just discovered homeopathy, and a well known critic of homeopathy is trying to take it to the bank . . again.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/comment-blogs/-/blogs/13779346/homeopathy-the-legal-view
They just don’t get it . . it would seem.
There’s obviously some money in naysaying and pretending to be stupid. The fact of the matter is homeopathy is an obvious threat to the pharmaceutical industry. Not as a competitor . . as a destroyer. The homeopathic pharmacopoeia, which now includes over 3,000 remedies, can’t be patented, is easily manufactured, sold and used for an Avogadran fraction of what patent medicine can get capitalizing on the fear that nothing else but their patented crap can possibly stop your cancer or dire disease. So it’s quite understandable that what maddens the opponents of it is that homeopathy actually cures people of their ailments, something that their “medicine” can’t claim.
Now before we get down and dirty in hand to hand combat in this war of lancets, allow me to wax a while profane . .
Certainly not homeopathy . . they say. But I say there wouldn’t be a mass health crisis of such magnitude if people, practitioner and patient, turned to homeopathy for the cure of ills. No, if homeopathy wa the common medicine of choice the disaster would be a financial one for the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, a debacle the magnitude of which has not been seen since the Great Asteroid strike they say killed all the dinosaurs . .
(Actually I think it was something else, but the putative myth provides an understandable allegory most everyone can enjoy)
You get my meaning . . don’t you?
The major complaint fed and fostered and carefully cultivated about homeopathy is that it is implausible. This of course is a myth, for what may be implausible in theory becomes a reality in practice. Most of this impotent ejaculating seems to come from people who can’t ignore the implausibility factor and are too scared (for fear of being proved wrong) to put it to the test. So what they say is that because it shouldn’t work, it doesn’t work, and this is what drives them into using the Luddite’s tongue of shouldn’t be.
Read here what some unidentified Australian barrister and professor of law recently wrote:
“Until such time as homoeopathy can scientifically justify its fundamental
tenets, which seems inconceivable by measures such as objective peer review,
double blind testing and proper replication of processes and outcomes, it
cannot be said that its claims for therapeutic efficacy can be justifiable.
This leaves the profession not just exposed to criticisms, such as were
enunciated in the cases referred to above, but potentially open to consumer
protection actions directed toward whether its representations are false,
misleading and deceptive, to civil litigation when its promises have not
been fulfilled, and especially when persons have died, and to criminal
actions in respect of the financial advantage that is obtained by its
practitioners from their representations.”
Okay, that’s enough. I’d regurgitate the rest of it for you here, but there’s no way for me to wake you up when you’re done reading it. Insomniacs can click on the link above.
Suffice it to say this kangaroo jurist goes on saying much the same thing, you can read it for yourself if you have an alarm clock, that’s what I used. But for the rest of you I must say, for a continent populated by descendants of a criminal class . . British bread stealers, pickpockets and debt slaves . . you’d think they’d be able to come up with better anti-homeopathy lawyers than this . . but then again he’s only a professor, those who can’t do teach and doesn’t have to make his living actually putting his theory to the test.
Ring a bell?
NEXT: The case against the case against homeopathy.
Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:
PS: I put the names of Ben Goldacre, PZ Myers, Neil degrasse Tyson here because I think they should read this too. And I include the names of James Randi and Edzard Ernst because I think they shouldn’t.
It would inflame them.
The John Benneth Journal 