Don’t You Take Anything That Big Pharma Isn’t Making Money On. Next they will be putting people into jail for using homeopathic medications.

(Chamille White/

FDA Is Taking a More Aggressive Stance Toward Homeopathic Drugs

“Just silly from a scientific point of view.”
19 DEC 2017

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday proposed a tougher enforcement policy toward homeopathic drugs, saying it would target products posing the greatest safety risks, including those containing potentially harmful ingredients or being marketed for cancer, heart disease and opioid and alcohol addictions.

Homeopathy is based on an 18th-century idea that substances that cause disease symptoms can, in very small doses, cure the same symptoms.

Modern medicine, backed up by numerous studies, has disproved the central tenets of homeopathy and shown that the products are worthless at best and harmful at worst.

Under US law, homeopathic drugs are required to meet the same approval rules as other drugs. But under a policy adopted in 1988, the agency has used “enforcement discretion” to allow the items to be manufactured and distributed without FDA approval.

Agency officials don’t plan to begin requiring that homeopathic products get approval – officials say that would be impractical – but they are signalling stepped-up scrutiny for items deemed a possible health threat.

Examples of high-risk products include ones that are administered by injection, are intended for vulnerable populations like children or the elderly, or are marketed for serious diseases, the agency said.

The FDA’s proposed approach, outlined in a draft guidance that will be open for public for 90 days, comes more than a year after homeopathic teething tablets and gels containing belladonna were linked to 400 injuries and the deaths of 10 children.

An FDA lab analysis later confirmed that some of the products “contained elevated and inconsistent levels of belladonna”, a toxic substance, the agency said.

Once a niche field, homeopathy has grown into to a US$3 billion industry that peddles treatments for everything from cancer to colds, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb noted in a statement.

“In many cases, people may be placing their trust and money in therapies that may bring little or no benefit in combating serious ailments, or worse – that may cause significant and even irreparable harm” because of poor manufacturing quality or unsafe ingredients, he said.

Still, he said, the agency wants to balance its safety concerns with the desires of consumers who want to continue using the products.

Under its planned approach, many products won’t be considered high risk and will remain available to consumers, Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told reporters during a teleconference.

But she said, the agency would “go after” products that cause – or might cause – “overt harm”.

The National Center for Homeopathy, which advocates for homeopathy and is based in Mount Laurel, NJ, says on its website that “homeopathy is a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health.”

Steven Salzberg, a biomedical engineer at Johns Hopkins University who in the past has criticised the FDA for not taking action against homeopathy, said it was “terrific” that the agency now plans to try to rein in the industry.

He cautioned that product makers are likely to “hit back hard with lots of spurious claims in an effort to confuse consumers and to protect their profits.”

Salzberg added that homeopathic products’ packaging suggests that the items “cure all sorts of conditions – pain, colds, asthma, indigestion, arthritis, you name it – and yet there’s not a whit of evidence” that they cure anything.

The homeopathy field, he said, is “just silly from a scientific point of view, more like a religious belief than a scientific belief.”

In July, Britain’s National Health System announced plans to stop doctors from prescribing homeopathic drugs. Simon Stevens, the system’s chief executive, described homeopathy as “at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds”.

The move came years after the House of Commons called on the government health service to stop paying for homeopathic prescriptions, saying, “To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy.”

In April 2015, the FDA held public hearings on the way it regulates homeopathic products as part of an effort to get public input on its enforcement polices.

The agency said Monday that as a result of the hearing and 9,000 comments submitted by the public, the FDA had decided to propose a new “comprehensive, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labelled as homeopathic and marketed without FDA approval.”

Over the past several years, the FDA has issued warnings about other homeopathic drug products, including zinc-containing intranasal products that may cause a loss of sense of smell; certain homeopathic asthma products that have not been effective in treating asthma and other products that contain strychnine, a poison used to kill rodents.

2017 © The Washington Post

This article was originally published by The Washington Post.

Recall State Officials!!!


NOTE: The following is presented for informational purposes only. NCSL does not provide advice on how to conduct a recall campaign in any state. For the specific procedures to be followed in any state, please contact state election officials.


Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office. Historically, recall has been used most frequently at the local level. By some estimates, three-fourths of recall elections are at the city council or school board level. This brief, however, focuses on the recall only as it applies to state officials.

Recall differs from another method for removing officials from office–impeachment–in that it is a political device while impeachment is a legal process. Impeachment requires the House to bring specific charges, and the Senate to act as a jury. In most of the 19 recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is held by an election.
Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia permit the recall of state officials:
Recall of State Officials
New Jersey
North Dakota
Rhode Island
District of Columbia

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011
Virginia has a process that is similar to a recall, but it is not listed here as a recall state because its process, while requiring citizen petitions, calls for a recall trial rather than an election. In Virginia, after sufficient petition signatures are gathered and verified, a circuit court decides whether a Virginia official will be removed from office. In the recall states, the voters decide through an election.

Recall of Local Officials
In at least 29 states (some sources place this number at 36), recall elections may be held in local jurisdictions.
History and Use of the Recall in the U.S.
The recall device began in the United States in a municipality–Los Angeles–in 1903. Michigan and Oregon, in 1908, were the first states to adopt recall procedures for state officials; Minnesota (1996) and New Jersey (1993) were the most recent.

Historically, recall attempts at the state level have been unsuccessful. The recall is used much more often, and with more success, at the local level.
There have been three gubernatorial recall elections held in U.S. history. In 2012, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived a recall attempt. In 2003, California voters successfully recalled Governor Gray Davis, and in North Dakota in 1921, voters removed from office not only Governor Lynn J. Frazier, but also the attorney general and the commissioner of agriculture. California voters have initiated 32 gubernatorial recall attempts since 1911, but the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis in 2003 was the first to ever reach the ballot. In 1988, Arizona voters filed enough signatures to trigger a recall election for Governor Evan Mecham, but he was impeached by the state’s House of Representatives before the date of the scheduled recall election.
Recall efforts against state legislators are more common, but still unusual. Recall attempts against legislators have gathered sufficient signatures to trigger an election just 38 times, and eleven of those occurred in a single year, 2011. Fifty-five percent of all legislative recall elections have succeeded in unseating a legislator, and additionally two legislators resigned after petitions with sufficient signatures were submitted. Seventeen recall attempts have failed, and the legislators subject to the recall remained in office. While there have been more legislative recall elections in recent years (45 percent have taken place in the years 2011-2013), they have been less successful than in the past: just eight of the 17 recalls attempted between 2011-2013 succeeded in unseating a legislator, a 47 percent success rate.

The list below represents all of the recall efforts against state legislators that led to elections between 1908 (when the first state to implement the recall, Oregon, did so) and the present.

Many more petitions are started and never make it to the election stage; either they are abandoned by their sponsors, or they fail to gather sufficient valid signatures to trigger an election. A recent example was in Colorado, in fall, 2013. Senator Evie Hudak faced a recall challenge; before the signatures were turned in, she resigned. By doing so, a recall election was not held, and her party was able to name her successor.

All Recall Elections Held in the U.S. for State Legislators

1913: California state senator Marshall Black was recalled.
1914: California state senator Edwin Grant was recalled.
1914: California state senator James Owens survived a recall election.
1932: Wisconsin state senator Otto Mueller survived a recall election.
1935: Oregon state representative Harry Merriam was recalled.
1971: Idaho state senator Fisher Ellsworth was recalled.
1971: Idaho state representative Aden Hyde was recalled.
1981: Washington state senator Peter von Reichbauer survived a recall election.
1983: Michigan state senator Phil Mastin was recalled.
1983: Michigan state senator David Serotkin was recalled. (Technically he resigned from office before the results of the recall election were certified, but the results were sufficient to recall him.)
1985: Oregon state representative Pat Gillis was recalled.
1988: Oregon state senator Bill Olson was recalled.
1990: Wisconsin state assembly member Jim Holperin survived a recall election.
1994: California state senator David Roberti survived a recall election.
1995: California assembly member Paul Horcher was recalled.
1995: California assembly member Michael Machado survived a recall election.
1995: California assembly member Doris Allen was recalled.
1996: Wisconsin state senator George Petak was recalled.
2003: Wisconsin state senator Gary George was recalled.
2008: California state senator Jeff Denham survived a recall election.
2008: Michigan house speaker Andy Dillon survived a recall election.
2011: Wisconsin state senators Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling, Dave Hansen, Sheila Harsdorf, Jim Holperin, Luther Olsen and Robert Wirch survived attempted recalls, while Senators Randy Hopper and Dan Kapanke were recalled.
2011: Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce was recalled on November 8.
2011: Michigan state representative Paul Scott was recalled on November 8.
2012: Wisconsin state senator Van Wanggaard was recalled. Senate Republican leader Scott Fitzgerald and senator Terry Moulton survived recall elections. Senator Pam Galloway resigned earlier in the year when sufficient signatures were gathered to trigger a recall election. Even though her name wasn’t on the ballot, a recall election was still held for her seat. All four senate seats in the recall election were held by Republicans; after the recall, three remain in Republican hands and one switched to the Democrats, giving control of the Senate to the Democratic party.
2013: Colorado Senate President John Morse and Senator Angela Giron were recalled on September 10.

Pros and Cons of the Recall

Supporters of the recall maintain that it provides a way for citizens to retain control over elected officials who are not representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive or incompetent. This view holds that an elected representative is an agent or a servant and not a master.

Opponents argue that it can lead to an excess of democracy, that the threat of a recall election lessens the independence of elected officials, that it undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special interest groups.

How the Recall Process Works
The recall process varies in its details from one state to another, but in general, it follows these steps:
1. File an application to circulate a recall petition (some states allow petitions only if they meet certain grounds for recall).
2. Circulate a recall petition, gathering a specified number of signatures in a limited period of time (view the detailed petitioning requirements).
3. Submit petitions to election officials for verification of signatures.
4. If sufficient valid signatures are presented, a recall election is held.
Grounds for Recall
In most states, any registered voter can begin a recall campaign for any reason. Often, the reasons are political. The 2011 recall efforts provide a good example for politically-motivated recalls. In Wisconsin, Republican senators faced recalls for their support of the governor’s effort to reduce the influence of public employee unions, while Democratic senators faced recall because voters disapproved when they left the state to delay a vote on the union issue. In Arizona, a senator faced recall for his sponsorship of a controversial immigration bill.
The language in Michigan’s constitution is typical of most states: “The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds … shall be a political rather than a judicial question.” (Const. Art. II §8)

In 2012, Michigan passed a new requirement that a recall petition must state clearly and factually the reason(s) for the recall, which must be based on the the elected official’s conduct during his or her term of office (M.C.L. §168.951A). This doesn’t really compare to the types of grounds required in other states. Even with this new law in Michigan, politically-motivated recalls can continue. For instance, a voter could initiate a recall against a legislator on the grounds that he voted against an issue the voter supports. As long as that is stated clearly and factually, it would presumably meet this new criteria.

Specific grounds for recall are required in only eight states:

Grounds for Recall

Alaska: Lack of fitness, incompetence, neglect of duties or corruption (AS §15.45.510)
Georgia: Act of malfeasance or misconduct while in office; violation of oath of office; failure to perform duties prescribed by law; willfully misused, converted, or misappropriated, without authority, public property or public funds entrusted to or associated with the elective office to which the official has been elected or appointed. Discretionary performance of a lawful act or a prescribed duty shall not constitute a ground for recall of an elected public official. (Ga. Code §21-4-3(7) and 21-4-4(c))
Kansas: Conviction for a felony, misconduct in office, incompetence, or failure to perform duties prescribed by law. No recall submitted to the voters shall be held void because of the insufficiency of the grounds, application, or petition by which the submission was procured. (KS Stat. §25-4301)
Minnesota: Serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in the performance of the duties of the office or conviction during the term of office of a serious crime (Const. Art. VIII §6)
Montana: Physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, conviction of certain felony offenses (enumerated in Title 45). No person may be recalled for performing a mandatory duty of the office he holds or for not performing any act that, if performed, would subject him to prosecution for official misconduct. (Mont. Code §2-16-603)
Rhode Island: Authorized in the case of a general officer who has been indicted or informed against for a felony, convicted of a misdemeanor, or against whom a finding of probable cause of violation of the code of ethics has been made by the ethics commission (Const. Art. IV §1)
Virginia: Neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office, or upon conviction of a drug-related misdemeanor or a misdemeanor involving a “hate crime” (§24.2-233)
Washington: Commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violation of oath of office (Const. Art. I §33)
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011
Circulating a Recall Petition
The recall process is similar to the initiative process in that citizen petitions are required. The number of signatures necessary to qualify a recall petition, however, is often significantly higher than for initiatives. Signature requirements are based on a formula, generally a percentage of the vote in the last election for the office in question, although some states base the formula on the number of eligible voters or other variants. Whatever the formula, the signature requirements are high: 25 percent in nine states; 25 percent for statewide offices and 35 percent for legislators in Washington; one-third in Louisiana; and 40 percent in Kansas. California’s requirements are 12 percent for statewide offices; 20 percent for legislators and appellate judges. Georgia requires 15 percent for statewide offices and 30 percent for all others. Idaho requires 20 percent for all offices. Montana has the lowest number of required signatures: 10 percent for statewide officials and 15 percent for state district offices such as legislative districts.

Who Can Be Recalled
Signature Requirement
Circulation Time
All elected public officers of the state except judicial officers
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified
Every public officer in the state holding an elective office
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
120 days
State officers, members of the legislature, judges of courts of appeal
For statewide officers:
12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties
State Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, judges of courts of appeal:
20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
160 days
Every elective officer of the state
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
60 days
Public officials who hold elective office
For statewide officers:
15% of eligible voters for office at time of last election, 1/5 from each congressional district
30% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
90 days
Every public officer in the state except judicial officers
20% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
60 days
15% of the votes cast for governor in the preceding general election from each of at least 25 counties
Also required are the signatures from at least 20 members of the House of Representatives and 10 members of the Senate, with no more than half the signatures of members of each chamber from the same political party.
150 days
All elected public officers in the state except judicial officers
40% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
90 days
Any state official except judges of the courts of record
If over 1,000 eligible voters:
33.3% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
If fewer than 1,000 eligible voters:
40% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
180 days
All elective officers except judges of the courts of record
25% of total votes cast for position at last election
60 days
State executive officers, legislators, and judges of the supreme court, court of appeals or a district court
25% of total votes cast for position at last election
90 days
Any person holding a public office of the state
For statewide officers:
10% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
For district officers:
15% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
3 months
Every public officer in the state
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
60 days
New Jersey
Any elected official in the state or representing the state in the U.S. Congress
25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled
Governor or U.S. Senator: 320 days
All others: 160 days
North Dakota
Any elected official of the state or legislative district
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified
Every public officer in the state
15% of total votes cast in officer’s district for all candidates for governor in the last election
90 days
Rhode Island
Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General
15% of total votes cast for said office in last general election
90 days
Every elective public officer of the state except judges of courts of record
For statewide officers:
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
35% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Statewide officers: 270 days
Others: 180 days

Any state, judicial, congressional or legislative official
25% of total votes cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory of that officer being recalled
60 days

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011
The Recall Election

In six states,the election for a successor is held simultaneously with the recall election. In California and Colorado, the first question on the ballot is whether the official should be recalled. Voters are then asked to vote for a candidate for the office; the official who is the subject of the recall may not be listed among these candidates. If a majority of voters votes “yes” on the recall question, then the incumbent is recalled and the successor is elected via the second part of the ballot. If a majority of voters votes “no” on the recall question, then the incumbent remains in office and the second portion of the ballot is moot.

In the other states using the simultaneous model, the submission and certification of the recall petition essentially triggers a special election for the office, and the recall ballot consists of a list of candidates for the office. The name of the official who is the subject of the recall may appear on the ballot along with other nominees. In fact, in Arizona and Wisconsin, the name of the official being recalled is automatically placed on the recall ballot for reelection unless the official resigns from office.
In the remaining 13 states, the recall ballot contains only the question of whether or not the official should be recalled. If the majority vote is “yes” for recall, the office is declared vacant and is filled at a special election or as otherwise provided by law, which in some states is by appointment for the remainder of the term. The chart below details how the recall election is conducted in each state.

Recall Election Held Simultaneously With Election for Successor
Recall Election Followed by Separate Special Election for Successor
Recall Election;
Successor is Appointed
North Dakota1
New Jersey

Rhode Island


1) In these states, the recall ballot consists of a list of candidates for the office held by the person against whom the recall petition was filed. The name of the officer against whom the recall was filed may appear on the ballot for reelection.
2) In these states, the recall ballot consists of two parts. The first asks whether the officer against whom the recall petition was filed should be recalled. The second part consists of a list of candidates who have qualified for the election. Note that courts in both states have ruled that a voter’s choice of candidate on the second part of the ballot must be counted regardless of whether or not the person cast a vote on the yes/no recall question first.
3) The governor appoints a successor who must be a member of the same political party as the officeholder recalled, and must be selected from a list submitted by a committee of the political party of the person recalled.
4) If vacancy occurs within 85 days of the general election in the second year of the term (terms are for four years), the county board of commissioners appoints a successor to serve until the election.
5) County board of commissioners appoints a person from a list submitted by a committee of the political party of the person recalled.

Recall Provisions in State Constitutions and Statutes
Alaska – Const. Art. 11, §8; AS §15.45.510-710, 15.60.010, 29.26.250-350
Arizona – Const. Art. 8, §1-6; Ariz. Rev. Stat. §19-201 – 19-234
California – Const. Art. 2, §13-19; CA Election Code §11000-11386
Colorado – Const. Art. 21; Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-12-101 – 1-12-122, 23-17-120.5, 31-4-501 – 31-4-505
Georgia – Const. Art. 2, §2.4; Ga. Code §21-4-1 et seq.
Idaho – Const. Art. 6, §6; Idaho Code §34-1701 – 34-1715
Illinois – Const. Art. 3. §7
Kansas – Const. Art. 4, §3; KSA §25-4301 – 25-4331
Louisiana – Const. Art. 10, §26; La. Stats. Ann. §18:1300.1 – 18:1300.17
Michigan – Const. Art. 2, §8; Mich. Election Law §168.951 – 168.975
Minnesota – Const. Art. 8, §6; Minn. Stat. Ann. §211C.01 et seq.
Montana – Mont. Code § 2-16-601 – 2-16-635
Nevada – Const. Art. 2, §9; Nev. Rev. Stat. §294A.006, Ch. 306, 539.163 – 539.183
New Jersey – Const. Art. 1, §2(b); NJ Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19:27A-1 – 19:27A-18
North Dakota – Const. Art. 3, §1 and 10; ND Century Code Ann. §16.1-01-09.1, 44-08-21
Oregon – Const. Art. 2, §18; Or. Rev. Stat. §249.865 – 249.880
Rhode Island – Const. Art. 4, §1
Virginia – Va. Code §24.2-233
Washington – Const. Art. 1, Sec. 33-34; Wash. Rev. Code §29A.56-110 et seq.
Wisconsin – Const. Art. 13, §12; Wis. Stat. Ann. §9.10