Beth Mole at ArsTechnica has an article about the levels of belladonna in homeopathic teething products made by Hyland's:
After investigating reports that more than 400 babies were sickened and 10 died in connection with homeopathic teething products, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed Friday that it had indeed found elevated levels of the toxic substance, belladonna, in the products.
Belladonna, also known as deadly nightshade, was the prime suspect of the investigation from the beginning, which Ars reported about last fall. Nevertheless, the products' maker, Hyland's, would not agree to recall the products when it was notified of the FDA's conclusion, the agency reported
In a response to Ars, Hyland's has acknowledged that there are some inconsistencies in the amount of belladonna in its products, but the company said that it has not seen any evidence from the FDA indicating that the elevated levels were toxic or excessive. [...]The FDA said it had found inconsistent amounts of belladonna in Hyland's products. Some of the amounts were "far exceeding" what was intended.
[...] As before, the FDA is urging parents to avoid the homeopathic teething products and toss any already purchased. The FDA does not evaluate or approve the homeopathic products, which have no proven health benefit.
Also: Hylands FAQ about the discontinuation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @03:40PM
There is nothing wrong with the argument. You're talking about incompetence in preparation, and that has nothing to do with "pseudoscience". For example, the FDA "arguments" for safety in food canning (time, temperature, and pH) are perfectly fine and sound arguments. They aren't "pseudoscience" if a canning facility can't carry them out to ensure it applies to all cans and batches.
The "so diluted" argument is a very compelling theoretical argument against the whole idea of homeopathy; the case for homeopathy only goes down from there if you're talking about not even being capable of ensuring you are diluting toxins down to the levels you say you need to for it to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @03:58PM
No, it is pseudoscience when in practice it is very difficult to perform the dilutions they claim. For decades the "skeptics" failed to actually check this and kept on with the same oversimplified theoretical objection to homeopathy's pseudo-scientific explanation. It is idiots on both sides.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 02 2017, @02:05AM
*cough*
The difficulty of a process doesn't define how scientific the process is. Did you think it was "easy" for the Manhattan project to achieve any of the steps involved in building fission bombs? Come on - anyone who reads this site can do better than that.