Homeopathy Papers

FDA Bureaucrats Seek to Restrict Access to Homeopathic Medicines … And what we can do to STOP THEM.

Patricia Feijo
Written by Patricia Feijo

Homeopath Patricia Feijo reports that the U.S. FDA is positioning itself to restrict access to homeopathic medicines. We need your help!

Editor’s Note:  The deadline to submit comments is March 20, so please do this TODAY!)

Courtesy – Center for Medical Freedom – (a project of CLDEF)

Summary:   Guidelines now being proposed by the FDA would restrict the public’s access to Homeopathic remedies, benefitting BIG PHARMA, but  harming Americans who should continue to have unregulated access to these healing products. Federal law does not give the FDA the authority to apply the rules designed only for toxic pharmaceuticals to nontoxic Homeopathic remedies. The FDA’s only job is to ensure that products are manufactured according to legal standards and are properly labeled. The rules and regulations governing Homeopathic remedies that have been in place for most of the last century are more than adequate to protect the public.

Late last year, the FDA proposed new guidelines for  Dec. 2017), disregarding federal law and usurping the right of American people to use historically available health-enhancing products of their choosing. Rather than promote the public welfare, these guidelines, if implemented, will injure countless individuals and the nation’s health. At the end of this article, I delineate the specific threats posed by these proposed guidelines and explain how greater regulation would place unnecessary restrictions on safe and beneficial Homeopathic products. Lastly, I explain how to file comments on-line with the FDA, where comments are due by March 20, 2018.

If you don’t have the time to read this entire article, but you understand the importance of continued access to Homeopathic Remedies — please  of this article and file your comments with the FDA.

The FDA is claiming that it is Homeopathy’s rise in popularity that has forced it to focus attention on Homeopathy, and to take a fresh look at restricting access to Homeopathic remedies and products. Is that a good enough reason to clamp down on Homeopathy? While there have been charges made about the safety of a few Homeopathic products (e.g., Belladonna and Homeopathic teething tablets), these charges have been shown to be baseless, and can usually be tracked back to Big Pharma and its minions. Absolutely no evidence has been presented that any of these charges against these products are true, and significant proof should be demanded before such charges are believed and acted upon. The few specific complaints the FDA points to must be carefully analyzed for other causative factors. Some of those could include whether the babies that reportedly developed seizures had recently been vaccinated, or were given other drug products, or were nursing mothers taking dangerous, but FDA-approved, pharmaceutical drugs.

One has to question the FDA’s recent assertions that some Homeopathic remedies pose “risk” requiring additional regulation, considering the 200- year track record of safety of Homeopathy. Moreover, it should be understood that the FDA receives three-quarters of its funding from pharmaceutical drug companies and has a known history of corruption. (See, e.g., “)

Homeopathic product sales have been surging, not due to consumer ignorance, as the FDA assumes, but the opposite – more informed consumers are opting for safer, gentler medicine over pharmaceutical chemicals. A survey done by Mass. General Hospital, as reported in the  (Feb 18, 2016), found that users of Homeopathic products were more likely to be “highly educated.” For 200 years, Homeopathic remedies have survived attempts by proponents of pharmaceutical drugs to suppress Homeopathy time and again, but the threat here is real and must be taken seriously.

My intent here is not to convince anyone of the superiority of Homeopathy to allopathic drugs, or even of its efficacy for all, but to insist that the federal law that has protected the public access to Homeopathic remedies for 79 years not be ignored by unelected bureaucrats. It is not the job of FDA employees to place their value judgment on this system of medicine, but only to ensure that such drugs are manufactured according to legal standards and are properly labeled.

Federal drug law was initially designed to ensure that any drug product sold would be unadulterated, and its ingredients safe and fully disclosed. The Pure Food and Drugs Act was enacted in 1906 (named “FDA” in 1930), to prohibit misbranded and adulterated foods and drugs from interstate commerce. The demand for stricter FDA oversight of drugs was fueled by the “Sulfanilamide Disaster” of 1937, when a liquid antibiotic poisoned and killed over 100 people as they unknowingly ingested diethylene glycol, an untested, toxic diluent used in the preparation of the drug. Hence the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA) was enacted to give the FDA responsibility for the safety of drugs, food, and cosmetics. However, that law recognized that Homeopathy was very different from toxic pharmaceutical drugs, and it wrote that difference into the law.

The principal author of the FDCA, U.S. Senator Royal S. Copeland (D-NY), was himself a homeopath (and an ophthalmologist), and thus fully understood the nature of Homeopathy, calling it a distinct, but not inferior, medicine. That distinction was enacted into law.

Unlike Homeopathic remedies, pharmaceutical drugs are basically chemicals, and all have a level at which they become toxic. Pharmaceutical drugs taken orally are metabolized by the body, causing a chemical reaction that hopefully will achieve its primary purpose, hopefully with fewer adverse side effects than benefits. Homeopathic drugs are quite different.  They could best be described as dynamic, not chemical. They are not metabolized by the body, and exert no chemical action within or on it.

A true Homeopathic remedy is made from a tincture that has been diluted beyond Avogadro’s scale, meaning not a single molecule of the original substance remains. (Most Homeopathic remedies are made by “medicating” sugar pellets with such super-dilution, but some are left in liquid form.) Skeptics mock that a Homeopathic drug can’t do anything since it is “nothing,” and insist that any good result from homeopathy can only be due to placebo effect. However, even if that were right, their use cannot be dangerous, and should not be prohibited.

However, the fact is that Homeopathic drugs work, being energetic in operation, which is what makes them fundamentally safe. They present absolutely no danger of toxicity, and have no side-effects. Any perceived “side-effects” from a Homeopathic medicine can only be the body’s natural response to its energy, while the body heals itself, and are always transient and mild. The healing effect from a Homeopathic remedy comes about by triggering the body’s energy to heal itself, just the way God designed it. Granted, this may be difficult for the unelected bureaucrats at the FDA to understand or accept, but people all over the world have discovered the gentle effectiveness of Homeopathy for themselves, experientially, for over 200 years.

For all these reasons, Homeopathic products cannot be properly judged by the same tests used for toxic chemical drugs. Therefore, under Sections 201(g) and 201(j) of the FDCA, Congress mandated that Homeopathic drugs “shall be subject to the provisions of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia.” Since 1938, Homeopathic preparations have been regulated and protected by this law, and such medications have been formulated according to provisions of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), which the Act recognizes as an official drug compendium of monographs (listings of drug data).

It is a principle and law of Homeopathy as established by founder Dr. Samuel Christian Hahnemann, that any Homeopathic remedy first be extensively tested by way of drug “provings.” In these tests, a pharmacologically active substance is given to healthy people – to see what symptoms it creates – and then a Homeopathically prepared dose of the same is given to people with those symptoms – to see what symptoms the remedy can mitigate. Innumerable compilations of these Homeopathic provings in book form provide detailed clinical confirmation of their usefulness.

The HPUS has been in continuous publication since 1841. In 1980, the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the United States was formed as a standard-setting organization, to focus on the regulatory approval of Homeopathic remedies and the development and publication of general pharmacy practices and standards. The criteria for inclusion in the HPUS require that a Homeopathic remedy be determined by HPCUS to be safe and effective and to be prepared according to the specifications of the HPUS general pharmacy section. Rather than following the new-drug approval process, premarket approval for new Homeopathic remedies is accomplished by way of review and “monograph approval” by the HPCUS.

Many of the most frequently used Homeopathic remedies used today were listed in the original HPUS in 1938 and should therefore be automatically protected from bureaucratic meddling. Nevertheless, now the FDA, acting on behalf of Big Pharma, seeks to consider Homeopathic remedies “new drugs,” ignoring the fact that they were “subject to the Food and Drug Act as amended (1938), and have been generally recognized among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed.” FDCA Section 201(p)1

Even without these new proposed rules, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, and sales of Homeopathic remedies would remain subject to FDA compliance rules. From 1982-1988, the industry, professional, and consumer members of the community through the American Homeopathic Pharmacists Association worked with the FDA in the development of a regulatory framework called . “The new CPG strengthened the definition of Homeopathic drugs, set forth guidelines for the prescription and non-prescription drugs, and made clear packaging and labeling guidelines.” This CPG was based on the law recognizing that even if Homeopathic remedies are sometimes called “Homeopathic Drugs,” there is a difference written into law. Under that law, drugs “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.



About the author

Patricia Feijo

Patricia Feijo

Patricia Feijo is a professional homeopath. She graduated from the New England School of Homeopathy in 1993, trained under several renowned classical homeopaths, and did advanced study through the Renaissance Institute of Classical Homeopathy under Dr. Luc De Schepper. She is the author of Called to Stand, the story of how the federal government shut down Daniel Chapter One, a 30-year healthcare ministry (available at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, or WND Superstore).

2 Comments

  • Thank you for alerting the homeopathic community Ms. Feijo. The FDA categories are so broad that they would allow the FDA to ban virtually every homeopathic remedy.


  • Have you written directly to the POTUS about this? I would encourage every US citizen who can put a good case to do so, specifically asking that it is considered at Oval Office level, and not simply passed to the FDA/FTC who will say that ‘consultation’ is closed (rather than minds being closed). Keeping it brief but with supporting references & documents.

    The FDA has clearly been a rogue agency for some time ( a revolving-door client of Pharma, even descending to book-burning in some cases), and their latest recommendations are based on pseudo-skeptic falsehood, and indeed on sloppy investigation. They have not yet rescinded the working guidance, but say they intend to do so.

    To counter the propaganda, I often quote RG Hahn that the published critical RSs are bogus (even though they all admit a small effect)


    and with a translator,

    Also, the recent critical Australian report – a whole lot of biased advice – appears to be bogus, academic fraud (except that it wasn’t peer-reviewed or published in a journal, of course):

    Homeopathy-Review-FINAL

    Apart from the FDA intention to “go after” these “medicines”, they also want to restrict them away from the very young and the elderly – arguably the sectors of the population who can most benefit – and to prevent their use for “serious conditions” for which homeopathy is extremely useful, and clinically proven, especially in cases where Pharma has failed. This would also have the effect of stifling research, and would restrict the data available for showing the clinical success of homeopathy (as properly applied).

    No doubt there will be an attack on nosodes fairly soon. Opponents do not understand the homeopathic uses of these to resolve difficult cases and to counter adverse effects (of course, there are no adverse effects, are there? Nothing to see here, move along.)
    They see them only as “homeopathic vaccines”, and they are hell-bent on protecting the dangerous vaccine industry, and not even acknowledging vaccine damage (there have been attempts to stop CEASE, for example). Something of a hot potato crossed with a holy cow.

    There is currently some peculiar research going on in Canada at McMasters, using this terminology, the author having initially stated the eccentric premise that homeopathic vaccines do not work (now re-phrased – a premise is conventionally never negative).
    In my opinion this is poorly designed with respect to possible fraud, and uses a criterion which is not even valid for prophylaxis (they want to measure resultant antibody levels, rather than the potential of plasma to react to assault to whit stimulated antibody levels).

    The leader of research is a well-known darling of the vaccine industry. No doubt his staff follow suit.

    (Officials in Canada wanted to ban nosodes before – there was a press campaign – but then )

    Our biggest problem is the army of pseudo-scientific “skeptic ” trolls, the ones that are strangely hardly ever critical of anything Pharma (not that two wrongs make a right). By Goebbels-style constant repetition, and by hijacking major sources of information such as wikiP & the NHS advice page, they have created a false “general impression” of homeopathy which extends into academia including medical schools, not to mention various regulators.
    For example, the page at NHS.uk/conditions/homeopathy/ quotes the very dodgy 2010 “evidence check”, where the majority of the commmittee did not support the negative conclusions, so they appointed two extra members to farce it through.

    These “skeptics” (who have turned the meaning of the word on its head) should be soundly countered at every chance – we need our own army of counter-insurgents – but it seems the majority of informed homeopaths don’t want to engage. I wish that would change.

Leave a Comment