Homeopathic Cough Medicine

[Cuddles]

Well, that's 1000 posts so I declare this thread officially over. Anyone posting from now on will be in breach of the Cuddles Accord of 2007 and will be subject to a severe tickling when they least expect it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why is it that I find this part rather amusing?



(bold mine)

So THAT'S what those lighthouse keepers were doing, all by their lonesome selves.

Where can you by one of those machines?

[BillyJoe]

Moonlight is already a homoeopathic dilution - of sunlight.


I hope you all enjoyed my holiday! :D
(Moochie, shame on you not having the low-down on our local variety :o )

BJ

[Unnamed]

Some of my best friends are quantum mechanics. They are friendly people who are untroubled by this lack of understanding. And I think it is for the best.

In 1971, my organic chemistry professor began the semester by writing "H(psi) = E(psi)" on the chalkboard. Then he said "When they solve this equation, we will be out of business." Fortunately, they are no closer today than they were then.
To solving? Indeed they aren't closer to that. To computing useful approximate solutions for real problems? You bet "they" are already doing that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_functional_theory).

[Moochie]

Why is it that I find this part rather amusing?



(bold mine)

So THAT'S what those lighthouse keepers were doing, all by their lonesome selves.

Congratulations on posting the thousandth message to this thread.

I would like to reward you with a lifetime supply of generic homeopathic pills. Just swallow with water -- they will fix any ailment you may (or may not) have. :D

M.

[BillyJoe]

I agree with you [Linda] when you said to Billy Joe that its kind of insulting to talk down to people or soften your arguments because they might not be as informed or smart as you.I didn't say "soften" or "talk down to". I said explain in terms the person you're conversing with can understand. Not everyone has special knowledge. Not everyone has the same level of understanding. Not everyone even has the same ability to understand. If you don't take this into account, communication will fail. I don't consider that insulting, I consider that commonsense.

[fls]

I didn't say "soften" or "talk down to". I said explain in terms the person you're conversing with can understand. Not everyone has special knowledge. Not everyone has the same level of understanding. Not everyone even has the same ability to understand. If you don't take this into account, communication will fail. I don't consider that insulting, I consider that commonsense.

That may have been what you were talking about, but it wasn't what I was talking about. It (using words the other can understand) also seems to be too obvious to bother discussing.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

...except that it's easy to do without realising it.

[Moochie]

...except that it's easy to do without realising it.

Hey, are you going for 2000 posts?

I mean, come on!


M. :D

[BillyJoe]

M. :DM = Moochie
M = Mini

Hey!.......:D

[Baron Samedi]

Congratulations on posting the thousandth message to this thread.

I would like to reward you with a lifetime supply of generic homeopathic pills. Just swallow with water -- they will fix any ailment you may (or may not) have. :D

M.

Awesome! My doctor said that I have a terrible case of hypochondria -- will the pills help? :D

[Garrette]

Awesome! My doctor said that I have a terrible case of hypochondria -- will the pills help? :D
No. But I can let you borrow my e-meter.

[Moochie]

No. But I can let you borrow my e-meter.

Now let's be clear about this...

:D

[fls]

...except that it's easy to do without realising it.

Also too obvious....

Linda

[BillyJoe]

...and then, of course, there is also denial

...no, I'm going to be big about this...I'm going to let you have the last word. :)

BJ

[fls]

...and then, of course, there is also denial

Huh? When have I ever denied that I am not always understandable?

Just cuz I don't get it right on my first (or second or third...) go doesn't mean I'm not trying.

I know. Much better to pretend I obfuscate from ignorance or malice so you can take another dig at me. I'm tempted to unleash the full power of my lexicon in your general direction.*

Linda

*really lame Monty Python joke

[fls]

Just so you know, I'm not ticklish.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

No, too many layers.

oh, I'm sorry...last word...yes, go ahead....

[fls]

Rodney,

I resurrected this thread to point out that now that Ioannidis' work is in the news again, numerous science bloggers are subjecting alt med therapies to the same kind of analysis and criticism that I applied to homeopathy in this thread. The same kind of analysis and criticism that you insisted was not a valid approach.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=8
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/09/the_cranks_pile_on_john_ioannidis_work_o.php

So there. :seP:

Linda

[genesplicer]

In the past I have printed up business cards with information and weblinks about the uselessness of homeopathic remedies and left the cards on the shelf next to the products. I don't know how well it works, but here's hoping. One of my friends says that in the past he has printed up information half-sheets of cardstock, run them through one of those card laminators to make a nice, stiff (And most important, official-looking) card. He then attaches them to the shelf near the items.

Because it's laminated, it's official, right? He says that sometimes the cards remain for weeks before somebody figures out they are not official company documents and remove them. I may try this in the future...

[fls]

In the past I have printed up business cards with information and weblinks about the uselessness of homeopathic remedies and left the cards on the shelf next to the products. I don't know how well it works, but here's hoping. One of my friends says that in the past he has printed up information half-sheets of cardstock, run them through one of those card laminators to make a nice, stiff (And most important, official-looking) card. He then attaches them to the shelf near the items.

Because it's laminated, it's official, right? He says that sometimes the cards remain for weeks before somebody figures out they are not official company documents and remove them. I may try this in the future...

That's a cool idea. I may try this at my local Walgrens.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

How come, when I have replied 200 times to a really important thread, I don't get a single email notification from start to finish, and can't even pursuade it to do so by unsubscribing and re-subscribing to it, but this little piece of $#!+ of a thread is still sending me notifications after 8 months?

:D

[Rodney]

Rodney,

I resurrected this thread to point out that now that Ioannidis' work is in the news again, numerous science bloggers are subjecting alt med therapies to the same kind of analysis and criticism that I applied to homeopathy in this thread. The same kind of analysis and criticism that you insisted was not a valid approach.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=8
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/09/the_cranks_pile_on_john_ioannidis_work_o.php

So there. :seP:

Linda

I still insist that it is invalid to pull a percentage out of the air as the "prior probability" that a finding is likely to be true. That's simply a way to discredit ideas that don't comport with the current conventional wisdom.

So, stick that in your witch's brew of OTC cough medicines, sister! ;)

[fls]

I still insist that it is invalid to pull a percentage out of the air as the "prior probability" that a finding is likely to be true. That's simply a way to discredit ideas that don't comport with the current conventional wisdom.

You are right. Since there is no a priori distinction between conventional and unconventional ideas except on the basis of supporting evidence, it is absolutely correct to say that methods of understanding the world that are based on gathering facts and forming useful explanations discredit those ideas that form useless explanations for questionable or non-existant facts. Or put another way, ideas that are useless and unsupported by facts are useless and unsupported by facts.

Of course, there are other ways of understanding the world that are not based on gathering facts and forming useful explanations, and you are welcome to use them. I just like the products of my way better.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=8 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=8)


This is the conclusion of the studies:

...John Ioannidis has published a series of studies that demonstrate that most published medical studies turn out to be wrong...



This is what it means:


.....Ioannidis compared single studies to the later literature - using the literature as its own gold standard. This does not mean that medical research is wrong. It just means that a research question has to mature, that multiple studies by independent researchers are required before we arrive at a reliable conclusion...



This is the practical implication:


...The implications for the practicing physician are clear...don’t overreact to every study....
...The implications for society are also clear...any single study must be put into the context of the broader literature...


This was no shock:

...One of the best ways to minimize false positives is to carefully consider the plausibility of the intervention being studied. CAM proponents are deathly afraid of such consideration for they live in the world of infinitesimal probability...
....[it] would also kill, in a single stroke, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which is ostensibly dedicated to researching medical treatments that have little or no scientific plausibility...



This was a shock:

...the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement...does not consider prior probability...

[fls]

This was a shock:...the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement...does not consider prior probability...

Yup. One of my main complaints about EBM. Most of the time, when applied to conventional topics, it makes no difference. I think it'll probably have to evolve a bit as it starts to expand its range.

Linda

[Rodney]

Yup. One of my main complaints about EBM. Most of the time, when applied to conventional topics, it makes no difference. I think it'll probably have to evolve a bit as it starts to expand its range.

Linda
If EBM does not consider prior probability, Linda, then I may be more of an EBMer than you are. :) However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based

"Evidence-based medicine attempts to express clinical benefits of tests and treatments using mathematical methods. Tools used by practitioners of evidence-based medicine include:

"Likelihood ratios. The pretest probability of a particular diagnosis, multiplied by the likelihood ratio, determines the posttest probability."

[Ivor the Engineer]

If EBM does not consider prior probability, Linda, then I may be more of an EBMer than you are. :) However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based

"Evidence-based medicine attempts to express clinical benefits of tests and treatments using mathematical methods. Tools used by practitioners of evidence-based medicine include:

"Likelihood ratios. The pretest probability of a particular diagnosis, multiplied by the likelihood ratio, determines the posttest probability."

The 'pretest probability of a particular diagnosis' is the conditions incidence in the population, which is often reliably know.

The probability of a drug being effective is much harder to estimate a priori.

[fls]

If EBM does not consider prior probability, Linda, then I may be more of an EBMer than you are. :)

Huh?

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based

"Evidence-based medicine attempts to express clinical benefits of tests and treatments using mathematical methods. Tools used by practitioners of evidence-based medicine include:

"Likelihood ratios. The pretest probability of a particular diagnosis, multiplied by the likelihood ratio, determines the posttest probability."

That isn't even remotely what I or the quoted material was referring to.

Linda

[Rodney]

Huh?

That isn't even remotely what I or the quoted material was referring to.

Linda
To clarify, if a prior probability percentage is estimated in a situation in which that percentage is reliably known, that makes sense to me. However, if a prior probability percentage is estimated in a situation in which that percentage is not reliably known, that does not make sense to me.

[BillyJoe]

To clarify, if a prior probability percentage is estimated in a situation in which that percentage is reliably known, that makes sense to me. However, if a prior probability percentage is estimated in a situation in which that percentage is not reliably known, that does not make sense to me.


There seem to be two different meanings of "prior probability":


First there is "prior probability", better known as "pretest probability".
This is the known incidence of a disease in the community and is used to assess the reliability of a particular test for the disease.

Here is a good summary:

http://www.musc.edu/dc/icrebm/sensitivity.html



Then there is "prior probability", as applied in the above linked articles.
Here, the phrase, "prior probability" refers to "the scientific plausibility or likelihood based on basic science and previous data".

For example, the "prior probability" of homoeopathic treatments is essentially zero, because there is no plausible scientific mechanism for homoeopathy; and a metanalysis of previous clinical trials demonstrates that the ratio [trials with positive outcomes for homoeopathy] / [trials with negative outcomes for homeopathy] is what would be expected by chance alone.


At least that is my understanding.

[Rodney]

There seem to be two different meanings of "prior probability":


First there is "prior probability", better known as "pretest probability".
This is the known incidence of a disease in the community and is used to assess the reliability of a particular test for the disease.

Here is a good summary:

http://www.musc.edu/dc/icrebm/sensitivity.html



Then there is "prior probability", as applied in the above linked articles.
Here, the phrase, "prior probability" refers to "the scientific plausibility or likelihood based on basic science and previous data".

For example, the "prior probability" of homoeopathic treatments prior probability" of homoeopathic treatments is essentially zero, because there is no plausible scientific mechanism for homoeopathy; and a metanalysis of previous clinical trials demonstrates that the ratio [trials with positive outcomes for homoeopathy] / [trials with negative outcomes for homeopathy] is what would be expected by chance alone.


At least that is my understanding.
Thanks, BillyJoe. I now recognize that the Wikipedia article is discussing only the first type of "prior probability." And again, applying a "pretest probability" percentage to a disease test makes sense to me because that percentage can be reliably estimated. However, applying a "prior probability" percentage to alternative medicine does not make sense to me because that percentage cannot be reliably estimated. Yes, skeptics may conclude that the percentage is zero because they see no plausible mechanism for how the alternative medicine could work, but they may be missing something. If the percentage really is zero, why do any tests at all?

[BillyJoe]

Yes, skeptics may conclude that the percentage is zero because they see no plausible mechanism for how the alternative medicine could work, but they may be missing something.


Well, no plausible mechanism and only chance positive results in a metanalysis of clinical trials.

If the percentage really is zero, why do any tests at all?


That is a good question.

[Blue Wode]

I haven’t read all of the posts on this thread, so apologies if this issue has been raised before:


FDA Advisers Urge Ban on Cold Medicines for Young Children

By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay Reporter
posted: 29 September 2007 12:20 pm ET

(HealthDay News) -- U.S. health experts on Friday urged the federal Food and Drug Administration to consider banning the sale of over-the-counter cough and cold medicines for young children.

The recommendation, from FDA safety officials, would apply to decongestant use in children under 2, and antihistamines in those younger than 6, according to agency documents released Friday, the Associated Press reported.

The products include approximately 800 popular medicines that are sold in the United States under names like Toddler's Dimetapp, Triaminic Infant and Little Colds, The New York Times reported.

FDA advisers will consider the recommendation during a meeting on Oct. 18 and 19, and will then offer their opinion to the full agency.

More...

http://www.livescience.com/healthday/608744.html




Does anyone know if this would include homeopathic cough medicine? Because if it doesn’t, wouldn’t the proposed ban see an increase in the use of homoepathic cold remedies for young children?

[fls]

I haven’t read all of the posts on this thread, so apologies if this issue has been raised before:

Does anyone know if this would include homeopathic cough medicine? Because if it doesn’t, wouldn’t the proposed ban see an increase in the use of homoepathic cold remedies for young children?

The ban is about reducing the harm associated with some specific drugs that are used in cough/cold medicines. It wouldn't include all cough/cold remedies, so it wouldn't include homeopathic cough/cold remedies (partly because there isn't a proper system in place to identify harm from homeopathic remedies or "food" supplements, and it is far more difficult to get harmful supplements off the market - in yet another irony of the DIM industry). If you've ever been the parent of a coughing child, the desire to "do something" can be overwhelming, so I suspect that parents will still give cough medicines to their young children. Whether that means more use of the cough medicines that would not be affected, off-label use of the affected cough medicines, or more use of DIM, I don't know.

Linda

[Rodney]

The ban is about reducing the harm associated with some specific drugs that are used in cough/cold medicines. It wouldn't include all cough/cold remedies, so it wouldn't include homeopathic cough/cold remedies (partly because there isn't a proper system in place to identify harm from homeopathic remedies or "food" supplements, and it is far more difficult to get harmful supplements off the market - in yet another irony of the DIM industry). If you've ever been the parent of a coughing child, the desire to "do something" can be overwhelming, so I suspect that parents will still give cough medicines to their young children. Whether that means more use of the cough medicines that would not be affected, off-label use of the affected cough medicines, or more use of DIM, I don't know.

Linda
"Over-the-counter cough and cold medications have long been a mainstay of parents trying to comfort children fighting common colds, coughs and other upper respiratory infections. Although many leading medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have long questioned the usefulness of such products and recommended against their use, they remain popular, especially for distraught parents desperate to do anything they can to help a sick child.

"But critics have long questioned the usefulness of the products, arguing there is virtually no good evidence to support their effectiveness, and good evidence that they can be dangerous.

"'Given that there are serious consequences, including death, associated with the use of these products without compelling reason to use them, why are they being marketed for children?' [Joshua M.] Sharfstein [Baltimore's health commissioner] said. 'The contrast between the state of the evidence and the displays in drugstores could not be more stark.'

"Sharfstein noted that some of these products have been sold in packages that depict babies and include droppers designed to administer doses supposedly safe for infants.

"No one know how many children have suffered adverse reactions to the products, but the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported earlier this year that at least 1,500 children under the age of 2 suffered complications in 2004 and 2005 after being treated with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines. An FDA review prepared for next week's meeting describes dozens of cases of convulsions, heart problems, trouble breathing, neurological complications and other reactions from a variety of products, including at least 54 deaths involving decongestants and 69 involving antihistamines.

"Many doctors advise their patients against using such products, and instead suggest they try Tylenol to alleviate pain, use dehumidifiers and salt water solutions to alleviate congestion, and give plenty of fluids to keep the child hydrated."

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100853.html?hpid=topnews

[fls]

And this (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=bd16d6dc-e375-434b-aea6-f13190fbe7ca). (Picked the first link on Google out of sheer laziness.)

"The makers of Robitussin, Dimetapp, Tylenol Little Drops, Little Colds, Pedia-Care and Triaminic Cough and Cold Medicines for infants are voluntarily recalling their products."

What has this to do with the price of chocolate?

Linda

[Garrette]

And this (http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=bd16d6dc-e375-434b-aea6-f13190fbe7ca). (Picked the first link on Google out of sheer laziness.)

"The makers of Robitussin, Dimetapp, Tylenol Little Drops, Little Colds, Pedia-Care and Triaminic Cough and Cold Medicines for infants are voluntarily recalling their products."

What has this to do with the price of chocolate?

LindaQuite a lot. When it is pointed out that mainstream medicinal products have no effect or potentially harmful effect, they get pulled.

Comparison to homeopathic products which have been repeatedly pointed out as having no effect: When are they voluntarily pulled?

[Rodney]

Quite a lot. When it is pointed out that mainstream medicinal products have no effect or potentially harmful effect, they get pulled.

Comparison to homeopathic products which have been repeatedly pointed out as having no effect: When are they voluntarily pulled?
Assuming that homeopathic products have no effect, isn't that better than "at least 1,500 children under the age of 2 suffer[ing] complications in 2004 and 2005 after being treated with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines"?

[Garrette]

Assuming that homeopathic products have no effect, isn't that better than "at least 1,500 children under the age of 2 suffer[ing] complications in 2004 and 2005 after being treated with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines"?I have no problem in comparing the two, but let's be fair and complete about it:

1. Traditional cough and cold medicines: X billions in sales annually. Large majority of children unaffected beyond placebo. Small minority helped. Smaller minority harmed. Voluntarily recalled when the evidence of harm and little help is released.

2. Homeopathic medicines: Y billions in sales annually. Zero children helped. Possibly no children harmed but unknowable as the industry has no quality standards and some products labeled homeopathic are actually herbal. Rabid refusal to address these long-known facts.

I'll still go with evil traditional mainstream big pharma.

[BillyJoe]

I don't suppose possible litigation had anything to do with the recall.

[Rodney]

I have no problem in comparing the two, but let's be fair and complete about it:

1. Traditional cough and cold medicines: X billions in sales annually. Large majority of children unaffected beyond placebo. Small minority helped. Smaller minority harmed.
Please document that more have been helped than harmed.


2. Homeopathic medicines: Y billions in sales annually. Zero children helped.
Please document that zero have been helped.

[fls]

Assuming that homeopathic products have no effect, isn't that better than "at least 1,500 children under the age of 2 suffer[ing] complications in 2004 and 2005 after being treated with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines"?

These things also did not result in children under the age of 2 suffering complications:

drinking water
playing peek-a-boo
eating mashed bananas
farting

Co-incidentally, they also, like homeopathic medicines, did not have any effect on cough and cold symptoms.

Linda

[fls]

Please document that zero have been helped.

Why?

Linda

[steenkh]

Assuming that homeopathic products have no effect, isn't that better than "at least 1,500 children under the age of 2 suffer[ing] complications in 2004 and 2005 after being treated with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines"?
It is quite definite that some homoeopathic remedies have harmful side effects. Most remedies come in the form of lactose pills, and a small minority of people have lactose malabsorption which will cause severe pains. The boisterous claim that homoeopathy has no side effects come only from the complete lack of studies in this area by homoeopaths.

[steenkh]

I don't suppose possible litigation had anything to do with the recall.
Very possible, but is it not so that alternative medicine is exempt from litigation in the U.S.?

[Rodney]

Why?

Linda
Because this thread is about the efficacy of homeopathic cough medicines vis-a-vis other OTC cough medicines. If you or Garrette has evidence that no children have been helped by homeopathic cough medicines and that more children have been helped than hurt by other OTC cough medicines, I'll score a point for other OTC cough medicines. But where is the evidence?

[Rodney]

It is quite definite that some homoeopathic remedies have harmful side effects. Most remedies come in the form of lactose pills, and a small minority of people have lactose malabsorption which will cause severe pains. The boisterous claim that homoeopathy has no side effects come only from the complete lack of studies in this area by homoeopaths.
That depends on what you mean by "homoeopathic remedies." Many have argued on this and other threads that, by definition, a true homoeopathic remedy cannot have any effect, positive or negative.

[fls]

Because this thread is about the efficacy of homeopathic cough medicines vis-a-vis other OTC cough medicines. If you or Garrette has evidence that no children have been helped by homeopathic cough medicines and that more children have been helped than hurt by other OTC cough medicines, I'll score a point for other OTC cough medicines. But where is the evidence?

This is the evidence. If I buy a lottery ticket, should it be assumed that I have the winning ticket - i.e. should I be able to purchase a car and house, and take money out of the bank, by offering the lottery ticket in return?

Given that pharmaceutical research on plant extracts offers a less than one percent yield for any given condition, if I have chosen one of those extracts at random, should I (without any testing) be able to act on the assumption that it will be effective by offering it in exchange for money?

Linda

[fls]

That depends on what you mean by "homoeopathic remedies." Many have argued on this and other threads that, by definition, a true homoeopathic remedy cannot have any effect, positive or negative.

The problem is that what is sold in the store under the label "homeopathic remedy" may or may not be homeopathic, but may instead contain active ingredients or poisons. And that the use of additional carriers, such as lactose pills and alcohol, have their own effects, although fortunately those effects will be known.

If the manufacturers hadn't been shown to be untrustworthy, you could possibly assume no harm. Since that isn't the case, the assumption is foolish.

Linda

[steenkh]

That depends on what you mean by "homoeopathic remedies." Many have argued on this and other threads that, by definition, a true homoeopathic remedy cannot have any effect, positive or negative.
The definition only covers the active ingredients, of which there are none. If I get a stomach ache after having taken a pill, I would call it a harmful effect of the pill, even if it is not from the part of the pill that is homoeopathic.

[Garrette]

Please document that more have been helped than harmed.Can I use the same standard of evidence homeopaths use?


Please document that zero have been helped.Ah ah ah. This burden is yours. Please document that any have helped.

[Rodney]

Can I use the same standard of evidence homeopaths use?

Ah ah ah. This burden is yours. Please document that any have helped.
Sorry, but you're the one making the claims; see post #1047 on this thread.

[BillyJoe]

I don't suppose possible litigation had anything to do with the recall.
Very possible, but is it not so that alternative medicine is exempt from litigation in the U.S.?

Very possible, but I was not comparing the two or defending one against the other, just commenting about possible motives behind the recall in this particular instance.

I haven't seen any litigation against alternative medicine but, here in Australia, an alternative medicine supply company (Pan) was closed down in recent times for failing to control the ingredients of their products (resulting in overdose symtoms).

[JJM]

Very possible, but is it not so that alternative medicine is exempt from litigation in the U.S.?I am not sure where you got that impression. We have a law allowing one to sell anything by calling it a "dietary supplement" without any criminal repercussions. However, the purveyors often lose civil suits when customers are hurt.

Licensed chiropractors (every state), naturopaths and homeopaths (a few states) are often protected by their licensing boards. License to practice is often a license to kill with (criminal) impunity. Once again, they may face civil penalties.

Many sCAM purveyors work unnoticed. In my town, there are two naturopaths practicing medicine without a license. One even says she only is licensed in a neighboring state; but you can come to her home office ...

Even when quacks are brought to the attention of the authorities, if they have not seriously harmed anyone (yet) the authorities often cannot be bothered to act.

As much as all this annoys me, I would not go so far as to say "alternative medicine is exempt from litigation ..."

[fls]

Sorry, but you're the one making the claims; see post #1047 on this thread.

Surely the burden of proof can rest on the one claiming an exception?

Linda

[Rodney]

Surely the burden of proof can rest on the one claiming an exception?Linda
Garrette has asserted that non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines have helped a "small minority" of children and hurt a "smaller minority," whereas homeopathic cough medicines have helped "zero children." Is there any evidence for these assertions?

[fls]

Garrette has asserted that non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines have helped a "small minority" of children and hurt a "smaller minority," whereas homeopathic cough medicines have helped "zero children." Is there any evidence for these assertions?

It is somewhat interesting, but moreso disappointing, that you are willing to be so dishonest as to pretend that you have not been given information about non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines already.

Garrette is not the one claiming an exception. You are. When the chance of hitting upon the right substance (we won't even get into the dilution thing) is less than one in a thousand, we would expect to get it wrong on the first try. Why would this be any different?

Linda

[Garrette]

For the truly logical response to your request for proof, Rodney, see fls' posts. She is correct.

For a less logical response, but one which I think will help lurkers realize the emptiness of your position, try this:

I withdraw the claim that homeopathic cough remedies have helped zero children. That leaves us with either no claim at all that they have helped anyone or your claim that they have. Do you claim homeopathic remedies have helped any children, Rodney?

For the other part, I repeat my question: to demonstrate that traditional cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed, may I use the same standard of evidence that homeopathy uses?

[Rodney]

For the truly logical response to your request for proof, Rodney, see fls' posts. She is correct.
I somehow missed that logic, but feel free to explain it.

For a less logical response, but one which I think will help lurkers realize the emptiness of your position, try this:

I withdraw the claim that homeopathic cough remedies have helped zero children.
Which is nice of you, considering you had zero evidence for that claim.

That leaves us with either no claim at all that they have helped anyone or your claim that they have. Do you claim homeopathic remedies have helped any children, Rodney?
I don't know whether it's the remedy or the power of suggestion, but it's clear that children have reported feeling better after taking homeopathic cough medicine, just as they have after taking other OTC cough medicines.

For the other part, I repeat my question: to demonstrate that traditional cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed, may I use the same standard of evidence that homeopathy uses?
As long as you have some numbers from a study. Do you?

[Garrette]

I somehow missed that logic, but feel free to explain it.I cannot improve upon Linda's phrasing.


Which is nice of you, considering you had zero evidence for that claim.Let's see:

1. Zero evidence homeopathy works
2. Zero evidence homeopathy hurts anyone

Are you advocating homeopathy based on that?


I don't know whether it's the remedy or the power of suggestion, but it's clear that children have reported feeling better after taking homeopathic cough medicine, just as they have after taking other OTC cough medicines. Before this information came to light, I would have said it is the former for homeopathy and the latter for the OTC stuff. Now I would say it is the former for homeopathy and in at least some cases the former for the OTC stuff as well.


As long as you have some numbers from a study. Do you?Ah. So I can't use the same standard of evidence as for homeopathy?

Typical.

[fls]

I somehow missed that logic, but feel free to explain it.

Why do you believe in pink crows?

Linda

[Rodney]

Let's see:

1. Zero evidence homeopathy works
2. Zero evidence homeopathy hurts anyone

Are you advocating homeopathy based on that?
As I said in my first post on this thread (#9 overall):

"If the work colleague thinks she has been helped, what exactly is the problem? And is your solution to have the government ban the cough medicine?"

Ah. So I can't use the same standard of evidence as for homeopathy?

Typical.
I'm just trying to figure out the basis for your assertion that a small minority of children have been helped by traditional cough and cold medicines and that a smaller minority have been harmed. Did your guru tell you that? ;)

[Rodney]

Why do you believe in pink crows?

Linda
Garrette's guru told me he saw one. :)

[Garrette]

As I said in my first post on this thread (#9 overall):

"If the work colleague thinks she has been helped, what exactly is the problem? And is your solution to have the government ban the cough medicine?"Contrast this with this:
I'm just trying to figure out the basis for your assertion that a small minority of children have been helped by traditional cough and cold medicines and that a smaller minority have been harmed. Did your guru tell you that? ;)You do not see an inconsistency?


Garrette's guru told me he saw one.I told you; I'm his sycophant...

But at least you finally admit the level of evidence you require for extraordinary claims. Pink crows. Homeopathy. Psychic detectives.

Somebody told you.

[Rodney]

You do not see an inconsistency?
No. I don't see any reason for banning homeopathic cough medicines unless they are proven to cause harm. On the other hand, you're making an unsupported assertion about traditional OTC cough medicines having helped more children than they have harmed.

But at least you finally admit the level of evidence you require for extraordinary claims. Pink crows. Homeopathy. Psychic detectives.

Somebody told you.
No, I've examined the evidence on my own, at least regarding homeopathy and psychic detectives.

[Garrette]

No. I don't see any reason for banning homeopathic cough medicines unless they are proven to cause harm. On the other hand, you're making an unsupported assertion about traditional OTC cough medicines having helped more children than they have harmed.The inconsistency to which I was referring, and which you say you do not see, is an inconsistency in standards of evidence.

You ask "If the work colleague thinks she has been helped, what exactly is the problem?" in reference to a homeopathic remedy, indicating that an unsupported anecdote is sufficient evidence to indicate efficacy.

Then, in regard to traditional OTC medicines you say "I'm just trying to figure out the basis for your assertion that a small minority of children have been helped by traditional cough and cold medicines and that a smaller minority have been harmed." Which makes it quite clear that you reject unsupported anecdote as sufficient evidence for traditional medicine's efficacy.

Which is precisely why you keep avoiding my question about whether or not I can use the same standard of evidence as homeopathy does to support my assertions.


No, I've examined the evidence on my own, at least regarding homeopathy and psychic detectives.Yes, I know you have. I also know, as do you, that none of your evidence has withstood scrutiny.

[Rodney]

The inconsistency to which I was referring, and which you say you do not see, is an inconsistency in standards of evidence.

You ask "If the work colleague thinks she has been helped, what exactly is the problem?" in reference to a homeopathic remedy, indicating that an unsupported anecdote is sufficient evidence to indicate efficacy.

Then, in regard to traditional OTC medicines you say "I'm just trying to figure out the basis for your assertion that a small minority of children have been helped by traditional cough and cold medicines and that a smaller minority have been harmed." Which makes it quite clear that you reject unsupported anecdote as sufficient evidence for traditional medicine's efficacy.

Which is precisely why you keep avoiding my question about whether or not I can use the same standard of evidence as homeopathy does to support my assertions.
You're confusing two different issues. The first issue is whether a remedy that has not been proven to be efficacious above placebo should be permitted to be sold over the counter. I say yes, unless that remedy has been proven to be harmful. The second issue is whether traditional OTC cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed. I see no evidence for that claim.

Yes, I know you have. I also know, as do you, that none of your evidence has withstood scrutiny.
That's a matter of opinion. :)

[Garrette]

You're confusing two different issues. No. I understand the distinction. I was talking about the second and you decided to talk about the first because it meant you wouldn't have to answer the question you still haven't answered.


The first issue is whether a remedy that has not been proven to be efficacious above placebo should be permitted to be sold over the counter. I say yes, unless that remedy has been proven to be harmful.I do not agree, and the reason is that you base your position on a presumption of a new substance being introduced in a vacuum without history. The history of homeopathic remedies includes the substantial point that it is not consistent and not all remedies labeled homeopathic are actually homeopathic. You also ignore financial harm and the harm of ignoring treatments known to be effective. And that doesn't even get into the precedent you are setting. Shall we allow anyone to dispense medical advice up to the point it is proven they do harm? Shall we allow Big Pharma to market any old pill they like until such point they are proven to do harm? And when the harm is proven do we let them off the hook because they did nothing illegal?


The second issue is whether traditional OTC cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed. I see no evidence for that claim. If you see any evidence at all that homeopathy has ever helped anyone, then you see evidence that traditional OTC cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed. But this, of course, gets back to the question you won't answer.


That's a matter of opinion. :)No. It's a matter of standards. Standards established through a long history of determining the best method for approximating the truth.

[Rodney]

No. I understand the distinction. I was talking about the second and you decided to talk about the first because it meant you wouldn't have to answer the question you still haven't answered.
And what question might that be?

I do not agree, and the reason is that you base your position on a presumption of a new substance being introduced in a vacuum without history. The history of homeopathic remedies includes the substantial point that it is not consistent and not all remedies labeled homeopathic are actually homeopathic. You also ignore financial harm and the harm of ignoring treatments known to be effective. And that doesn't even get into the precedent you are setting. Shall we allow anyone to dispense medical advice up to the point it is proven they do harm? Shall we allow Big Pharma to market any old pill they like until such point they are proven to do harm? And when the harm is proven do we let them off the hook because they did nothing illegal?
Do you disagree with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's policies on homeopathic drugs? See http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdrg/cpg400-400.html

If you see any evidence at all that homeopathy has ever helped anyone, then you see evidence that traditional OTC cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed.
Studies on homeopathic remedies have shown mixed results. I'm still looking for a study showing that traditional OTC cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed.

No. It's a matter of standards. Standards established through a long history of determining the best method for approximating the truth.
When the leading 18th Century scientific body (French Academy of Sciences) determined using its standards that there are no meteorites, was that helpful in approximating the truth?

[JJM]

{snip} Do you disagree with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's policies on homeopathic drugs? See http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdrg/cpg400-400.html (http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdrg/cpg400-400.html) The FDA on homeopathy is dictated by law, not science. Credulous legislators were persuaded to endorse it (at least, minimally) by a powerful, homeopath senator (Royal Copeland) 70 years ago.
Studies on homeopathic remedies have shown mixed results. {snip}The best studies show it is useless, see above. But, feel free to cite any you think are good and support homeopathy.
When the leading 18th Century scientific body (French Academy of Sciences) determined using its standards that there are no meteorites, was that helpful in approximating the truth?Irrelevant, grasping at straws. We call this the Galileo defense, Galileo was right despite prevailing opinion. In 200 years, homeopaths have never proven themselves "right" (along with astrologers, flat-earthers, phrenologists, Biblical literalists ...).

[Rodney]

The FDA on homeopathy is dictated by law, not science. Credulous legislators were persuaded to endorse it (at least, minimally) by a powerful, homeopath senator (Royal Copeland) 70 years ago.
The FDA regulation I linked to -- Sec. 400.400, "Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed" -- was established not 70 years ago but in 1988 (and revised in 1995). Do you believe it should be revised? If so, how?

The best studies show it is useless, see above. But, feel free to cite any you think are good and support homeopathy.
An article in the British Medical Journal (1991, 302:316-323) reviewed 105 homeopathy trials, finding that 81 had positive results. Yes, that review can be challenged, but the question is whether homeopathic remedies should be banned if they do no harm and might be beneficial.


Irrelevant, grasping at straws. We call this the Galileo defense, Galileo was right despite prevailing opinion. In 200 years, homeopaths have never proven themselves "right" (along with astrologers, flat-earthers, phrenologists, Biblical literalists ...).
The fundamental issue is whether the prevailing scientific conventional wisdom should be accepted as the ultimate truth. Time and time again, that wisdom has proven to be incomplete, misleading, or flat-out wrong.

[Garrette]

And what question might that be?May I used the same standard of evidence in regard to traditional OTC medicine as is used for homeopathy? I have repeated this question a few times. I find it difficult to believe you do not know what it is.


Do you disagree with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's policies on homeopathic drugs? See http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdrg/cpg400-400.html Yes, largely for the reason JJM has mentioned. Let us make it clear to the lurkers that the link you posted makes it clear that homeopathic remedies for self-limiting conditions recognizable by the consumer are the only ones allowed to be sold OTC and that homeopathic remedies for serious conditions require a license which most homeopaths do not possess.


Studies on homeopathic remedies have shown mixed results.Just like Uri Geller's performances show mixed results yet it is clear he is a fraud because there are no positive results beyond placebo except when the performances do not have proper controls.


I'm still looking for a study showing that traditional OTC cough medicines have helped more children than they have harmed.Really? You don't look very hard (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/08/MNGNF7I1G31.DTL). No better than placebo, but also no worse, statistically speaking. No one harmed.



Now before you accuse me of cherry-picking, here's a contrary view (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/3/e52):


When the leading 18th Century scientific body (French Academy of Sciences) determined using its standards that there are no meteorites, was that helpful in approximating the truth?Absolutely. You'll note that that position is no longer held because of countervailing evidence. You'll note that traditional OTC cough medicines may be pulled from the shelves because of a lack of efficacy. You'll not that homeopathic remedies continue to be hawked despite a lack of efficacy. I'll stick with the scientific system, thanks; the system homeopathy has opted out of.

[fls]

I think there should be a rule that if you think the process is useless, you don't get access to the results.

Linda

[Garrette]

The FDA regulation I linked to -- Sec. 400.400, "Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed" -- was established not 70 years ago but in 1988 (and revised in 1995). Yes, and it limits prescribing homeopathy to individuals licensed in a way that most homeopaths aren't.


An article in the British Medical Journal (1991, 302:316-323) reviewed 105 homeopathy trials, finding that 81 had positive results. Yes, that review can be challenged,And has been (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2390055&highlight=British+Medical+Journal+homeopathy#post2 390055).


but the question is whether homeopathic remedies should be banned if they do no harm and might be beneficial.It's the "might be" that's problematic along with "beneficial." Drinking water is beneficial, so some homeopathic remedies are by definition beneficial. "Might be" is just wishful thinking. Lots of things "might be" beneficial, but that does not entitle me to profit off their sale if the "might be" is equivalent to a lotto play.


The fundamental issue is whether the prevailing scientific conventional wisdom should be accepted as the ultimate truth.Straw man. The scientific and medical community do not accept it as the ultimate truth. Your own example of the French and the meteorites demonstrates that quite nicely. It wasn't homeopaths who determined the conventional wisdom was wrong; it was scientists.


Time and time again, that wisdom has proven to be incomplete, misleading, or flat-out wrong.Exactly. And when shown to be such, it is abandoned, modified, change, and retried. Homeopathy, on the other hand, despite time and time again being shown to be worthless, remains the same.

[Garrette]

I think there should be a rule that if you think the process is useless, you don't get access to the results.

LindaI like that. Or you could let people choose one or the other but not both. Here's your choice of medical plans, Rodney. For the rest of your life, you and your family may access either traditional medicine or homeopathic cures. Your choice. No turning back.

I wonder what the choice would be.

[Rodney]

May I used the same standard of evidence in regard to traditional OTC medicine as is used for homeopathy? I have repeated this question a few times. I find it difficult to believe you do not know what it is.
"As is used for homeopathy" in whose opinion? But let me make it easy for you: If you can find a study demonstrating your point using the same standard of evidence as was used by the authors of the British Medical Journal article that I quoted, I'll accept that.

Yes, largely for the reason JJM has mentioned. Let us make it clear to the lurkers that the link you posted makes it clear that homeopathic remedies for self-limiting conditions recognizable by the consumer are the only ones allowed to be sold OTC and that homeopathic remedies for serious conditions require a license which most homeopaths do not possess.
So would you ban all homeopathic products?

Just like Uri Geller's performances show mixed results yet it is clear he is a fraud because there are no positive results beyond placebo except when the performances do not have proper controls.
Not an apt analogy unless you are alleging that all or most homeopaths are frauds.

Really? You don't look very hard (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/08/MNGNF7I1G31.DTL). No better than placebo, but also no worse, statistically speaking. No one harmed.

Now before you accuse me of cherry-picking, here's a contrary view (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/3/e52):
I don't think the two studies are at odds. The first find no effect above placebo, while the second finds actual harm. If your standard for "helped" is the placebo effect, then surely homeopathic cough medicines meet that same standard. So, I still don't understand your initial analysis:

"1. Traditional cough and cold medicines: X billions in sales annually. Large majority of children unaffected beyond placebo. Small minority helped. Smaller minority harmed.

"2. Homeopathic medicines: Y billions in sales annually. Zero children helped."

Absolutely. You'll note that that position is no longer held because of countervailing evidence.
Only because eventually the evidence became so obvious that even the world's most prestigious scientific body could see it. ;) But why the arrogant attitude on the part of the scientific establishment?

You'll note that traditional OTC cough medicines may be pulled from the shelves because of a lack of efficacy. You'll not that homeopathic remedies continue to be hawked despite a lack of efficacy.
No, traditional OTC cough medicines for children have been pulled only because of evidence of actual harm, not simply a lack of efficacy. If it can be shown that homeopathic cough medicines for children cause actual harm, they will be pulled also.

I'll stick with the scientific system, thanks; the system homeopathy has opted out of.
Again, there is some evidence that homeopathic remedies work, so it's a question of what standard of evidence is used.

[fls]

Again, there is some evidence that homeopathic remedies work, so it's a question of what standard of evidence is used.

There is no evidence that homeopathic remedies work. There have been no studies where, when the null hypothesis is rejected, that would be a reasonable alternate hypothesis. And the pattern of results, taken as a whole, has been shown to be exactly what you'd expect to see in the presence of chance, bias and fraud, and in the absence of a true effect.

You refer to 'standards', but none of us are really interested in standards. What we are interested in is having some idea of whether or not our observations, conclusions, and explanations are likely to be real or true. All we are saying is that under these circumstances we are more likely to be heading in the right direction, and under those circumstances we often make associations that turn out to be wrong.

Under circumstances where we're likely to be right, OTC cough medicines have helped some while harming a few (as shown by the multiple studies linked to earlier in this thread showing benefit above placebo and few adverse effects confined mostly to very young children), and homeopathic treatments have not shown any specific effect. Under circumstances where we're likely to be wrong, OTC cough medicines have shown enough adverse effects in infants to warrant withdrawal from the market, and homeopathic treatments show a hint of effectiveness. Take your pick.

Linda

[Garrette]

"As is used for homeopathy" in whose opinion? Not an opinion. The evidence for homeopathic evidence is primarily anecdotal and secondarily dubious experimentation that does not withstand scrutiny. That has already been discussed on this board and in this thread; I do not wish to rehash it.


But let me make it easy for you: If you can find a study demonstrating your point using the same standard of evidence as was used by the authors of the British Medical Journal article that I quoted, I'll accept that. Dig through this very thread, Rodney.


So would you ban all homeopathic products? Any that don't say: The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that you are wasting your money buying this product unless you simply want something to give you a nice placebo effect. Homeopathic remedies have never been clinically shown to demonstrate efficacy in any condition that is not self-correcting. In addition, beware of products labeled "homeopathic" which are in fact herbal and therefore present a danger which is not present in homeopathy because homeopathy is really just water or sugar pills.


Not an apt analogy unless you are alleging that all or most homeopaths are frauds.Fraudulent or deluded. I do not speculate on the ratio. The analogy remains apt.


I don't think the two studies are at odds. The first find no effect above placebo,Exactly. Precisely the standard of evidence for homeopathic remedies.


while the second finds actual harm.Exactly. I show contrary evidence. How often do you show evidence contrary to your position?


If your standard for "helped" is the placebo effect, then surely homeopathic cough medicines meet that same standard.You are bordering on being intentionally deceitful. It is homeopathy that uses placebo as the standard for helped. That has been my whole point.


So, I still don't understand your initial analysis:

"1. Traditional cough and cold medicines: X billions in sales annually. Large majority of children unaffected beyond placebo. Small minority helped. Smaller minority harmed.

"2. Homeopathic medicines: Y billions in sales annually. Zero children helped."It's quite clear. I fail to understand how you do not understand it.


Only because eventually the evidence became so obvious that even the world's most prestigious scientific body could see it. ;) I see. You are saying that when an organization abandons a strongly held position in the face of overwhelming evidence it is an indication of a flaw with that organization even if the timespan is relatively short. Homeopathy, then, must rank very highly in your eyes given its refusal to abandon its claims in the face of over a century of overwhelming evidence.


But why the arrogant attitude on the part of the scientific establishment?They thought they were right. When shown otherwise, they changed. Does arrogance (which you haven't demonstrated the French Academy showed) nullify evidence?

If you want real arrogance, look at the homeopathic community who continue to peddle their magic water despite a century of overwhelming evidence. That's arrogance. That's inexcusable.

One more thing. Who, exactly, do you think convinced the "scientific establishment" to abandon their position on meteorites? It wasn't homeopaths or psychics or mediums or dowsers or alchemists. It was scientists.

I'll take bushels of that kind of arrogance over a tanker of 30C snake oil any day.


No, traditional OTC cough medicines for children have been pulled only because of evidence of actual harm, not simply a lack of efficacy.Have you read the links in this thread?


If it can be shown that homeopathic cough medicines for children cause actual harm, they will be pulled also. One would hope. The history of the homeopathic community suggests otherwise.


Again, there is some evidence that homeopathic remedies work, so it's a question of what standard of evidence is used.Anecdotal evidence, testimonials, and a handful of trials which when scrutinized reveal no statistical significance or reveal fatal methodological flaws.

[Garrette]

You refer to 'standards', but none of us are really interested in standards. To be fair, I am the one who introduced the word "standards" when I asked Rodney if I can use the same standard of evidence to demonstrate traditional medicine efficacy as homeopaths use for their remedies. If the term is not applicable in this context, that's my fault.

[Mongrel]

"As is used for homeopathy" in whose opinion? But let me make it easy for you: If you can find a study demonstrating your point using the same standard of evidence as was used by the authors of the British Medical Journal article that I quoted, I'll accept that.

Bandolier are a high quality source and they're pretty consistent with the summary As the quality score increases (better studies) the odds ratio (for homeopathy versus placebo) goes down, and goes down to about 1-2. The authors of the letter comment that:

"some (but by no means all) methodologically astute and highly convincing homeopaths have published results that look convincing but are, in fact, not credible. Viewed in this way, the reanalysis.... can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos."

More from their archives here (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/htsearch)

[Rodney]

Not an opinion. The evidence for homeopathic evidence is primarily anecdotal and secondarily dubious experimentation that does not withstand scrutiny. That has already been discussed on this board and in this thread; I do not wish to rehash it.
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to refresh your memory by referencing post #656 on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2164625&postcount=656). A more objective person might conclude that the notion that homeopathy has been completely discredited is erroneous.

Any that don't say: The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that you are wasting your money buying this product unless you simply want something to give you a nice placebo effect. Homeopathic remedies have never been clinically shown to demonstrate efficacy in any condition that is not self-correcting. In addition, beware of products labeled "homeopathic" which are in fact herbal and therefore present a danger which is not present in homeopathy because homeopathy is really just water or sugar pills. I might be willing to live with that if the FDA will simultaneously require that the following be placed on traditional OTC cough medicines: Note: There is no clinical evidence that this medicine relieves cough, and children's cough medicines similar to this one have been removed from the marketplace due to a number of children suffering adverse consequences, including death, from their use.

You are bordering on being intentionally deceitful.
I pride myself in walking that fine line. ;)

It is homeopathy that uses placebo as the standard for helped. That has been my whole point.
Other than the many studies that have shown homeopathy performing above placebo.

I see. You are saying that when an organization abandons a strongly held position in the face of overwhelming evidence it is an indication of a flaw with that organization even if the timespan is relatively short. Homeopathy, then, must rank very highly in your eyes given its refusal to abandon its claims in the face of over a century of overwhelming evidence.
Contradictory studies constitute "overwhelming evidence"?

They thought they were right. When shown otherwise, they changed. Does arrogance (which you haven't demonstrated the French Academy showed) nullify evidence?
The point is that the French Academy should have been open to the idea of meteorites all along. That's what true skepticism is, as opposed to pseudoskepticism, which is not open to ideas that are too far removed from the conventional wisdom.

If you want real arrogance, look at the homeopathic community who continue to peddle their magic water despite a century of overwhelming evidence. That's arrogance. That's inexcusable.

One more thing. Who, exactly, do you think convinced the "scientific establishment" to abandon their position on meteorites? It wasn't homeopaths or psychics or mediums or dowsers or alchemists. It was scientists.
I think you'll find that it was a French meteor shower that took place in 1803. Without that, who knows how long the French Academy would have clung to its mistaken worldview.

Anecdotal evidence, testimonials, and a handful of trials which when scrutinized reveal no statistical significance or reveal fatal methodological flaws.
So you've examined in detail all of the positive homeopathy studies?

[Garrette]

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to refresh your memory by referencing post #656 on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2164625&postcount=656). I counter with posts 660, 662, and 666. Several after that, too, but I'm sure you can find them. You've been shot down more than once, Rodney. Don't pull a DOC and pretend it never happened.


A more objective person might conclude that the notion that homeopathy has been completely discredited is erroneous.Moi? Not objective? I'm wounded.

A more honest person might admit he has been repeatedly presented with the evidence to show that homeopathy is bunkum.


I might be willing to live with that if the FDA will simultaneously require that the following be placed on traditional OTC cough medicines: Note: There is no clinical evidence that this medicine relieves cough, and children's cough medicines similar to this one have been removed from the marketplace due to a number of children suffering adverse consequences, including death, from their use.If this were true, I would have no objection. You have been presented with legitimate evidence of efficacy. Linda and others can speak better to this than I.


I pride myself in walking that fine line. ;)Don't fool yourself into thinking that my politeness in not pointing out when you have crossed out means that it hasn't been noticed.


Other than the many studies that have shown homeopathy performing above placebo. Many? Hah. Read your own link to post 656. Then read the posts I referenced above.


Contradictory studies constitute "overwhelming evidence"?Contradictory studies coupled with a lack of supporting studies except those with serious methodological flaws do constitute overwhelming evidence, yes.


The point is that the French Academy should have been open to the idea of meteorites all along.I see. No one should ever make mistakes and everyone should devote limited resources (time, money, etc.) on whatever you deem is appropriate in hindisght. Got it.


That's what true skepticism is, as opposed to pseudoskepticism, which is not open to ideas that are too far removed from the conventional wisdom. Poppycock and balderdash. You're demanding every scientist spend time and effort on a fantasy simply because someone fantasized it. What science is not open to is fantasies without reason to suspect there is validity behind them. What science is open to are ideas "far removed from the conventional wisdom" that have at least a whiff of legitimacy to justify the expenditure of non-infinite resources.

What homeopaths and you are not open to is the idea that all those things showing your idea wrong do in fact show your idea wrong. There is closed-mindedness here, Rodney, but it is on your side.


I think you'll find that it was a French meteor shower that took place in 1803.Thank heaven all those homeopaths dragged all those reluctant French scientists screaming from their closets into the cold dark night to witness it. No scientist every would have dreamed of seeing a meteor show and saying "Wow. I was wrong about there not being any meteor showers."


Without that, who knows how long the French Academy would have clung to its mistaken worldview. Probably till the next one. Step one: Hypothesize. Step two: Observe. Step three: Adjust hypothesis to fit observations.

That's how it appears to have worked for those stuffy Frenchmen. For the homeopaths Step Three is: Adjust observations to fit hypothesis.


So you've examined in detail all of the positive homeopathy studies?Rodney, I am truly flattered. I find it quite an honor that only my personal desconstruction of those studies will suffice when people like fls and JJM and others more learned in the topic have already done so.

[fls]

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to refresh your memory by referencing post #656 on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2164625&postcount=656). A more objective person might conclude that the notion that homeopathy has been completely discredited is erroneous.

Not a more objective person...a person who wishes to leave the possibility open. If you wish to believe in homeopathy, invisible pink unicorns, and sasquatch, you can always muster up deniability.

I might be willing to live with that if the FDA will simultaneously require that the following be placed on traditional OTC cough medicines: [I]Note: There is no clinical evidence that this medicine relieves cough,

Actually, the cold medicines that were removed were those that did show clinical evidence that they relieved cough.

Other than the many studies that have shown homeopathy performing above placebo.

There aren't 'many' studies showing that homeopathy performs above placebo. Once you take bias into account, there are only a handful of studies - the number that you'd expect due to chance - that show statistically significant differences. And one cannot conclude from that that the differences are due to homeopathy (there are other, more plausible, explanations).

The point is that the French Academy should have been open to the idea of meteorites all along. That's what true skepticism is, as opposed to pseudoskepticism, which is not open to ideas that are too far removed from the conventional wisdom.

Actually, I think psuedoskepticism is pretending that recognizing that there is insufficient evidence to support an idea is the same thing as denying the possibility of the idea.

So you've examined in detail all of the positive homeopathy studies?

He may not have, but I have examined all that anyone could be expected to take seriously (and many that could not), and what he says is correct.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

I love reading your summaries, Linda. :)


But are you saying...

Under circumstances where we're likely to be wrong, OTC cough medicines have shown enough adverse effects in infants to warrant withdrawal from the market...


....that it is likely that the evidence of side effects that is leading to (has led to?) the withdrawal of OTC cough medicines aimed at children under two years of age, is likely to be wrong?

The evidence is of convulsions and death which, I assume, is the result of overdosing on these medicines. Even though this is not really a side effect of the medicine (given in recommended doses), it is still a valid reason to withdraw the medicine, is it not? Or do you think the evidence linking the convulsions and death to the medicine is not strong?

Interestingly, here in Australia, there has been no evidence of these sort of problems (according to the FDA), but they are considering the withdrawal of these products based on the US experience.

[Rodney]

Actually, the cold medicines that were removed were those that did show clinical evidence that they relieved cough.
Please document.

[Mojo]

What, again?

[fls]

I love reading your summaries, Linda. :)


But are you saying...




....that it is likely that the evidence of side effects that is leading to (has led to?) the withdrawal of OTC cough medicines aimed at children under two years of age, is likely to be wrong?

The evidence is of convulsions and death which, I assume, is the result of overdosing on these medicines. Even though this is not really a side effect of the medicine (given in recommended doses), it is still a valid reason to withdraw the medicine, is it not? Or do you think the evidence linking the convulsions and death to the medicine is not strong?

Interestingly, here in Australia, there has been no evidence of these sort of problems (according to the FDA), but they are considering the withdrawal of these products based on the US experience.

The evidence depends upon adverse event reporting which can, at best, demonstrate association but not causation. And in its raw form, it doesn't even demonstrate association. So the evidence is weak, at best.

Linda

[Rodney]

Interesting to note that "[a] clinical trial has found that honey is more effective at soothing a sore throat than a common active ingredient in children's cough medicines . . . The team from Pennsylvania State University report today in the Archives of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine that honey was more effective than dextromethorphan at relieving the severity, frequency and bothersome nature of the cough. The medicine was slightly more effective than no treatment at all." See http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/dec/04/health.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=science

Now, if you really want to cure your cough, try this recipe:

To 1 gallon of distilled water, add 4 ounces of Horehound (dry). Reduce by simmering, so that when it is strained there will be 1 pint. To this add:

Compound Simple Syrup................2 ounces,
Glycerine...........................10 minims,
Honey (strained from honeycomb)....1/2 ounce.

Cut Balsam of Tolu 1 dram in 2 ounces of pure grain alcohol and add to solution.

Shake well together when the dose is taken, which would be half to a teaspoonful only occasionally, or when necessity requires.

And who prescribed the above? Edgar Cayce, in Reading 420-1, given October 14, 1933. According to Cayce: "This would cure anyone's cough!"

[logical muse]

Interesting to note that "[a] clinical trial has found that honey is more effective at soothing a sore throat than a common active ingredient in children's cough medicines . . . The team from Pennsylvania State University report today in the Archives of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine that honey was more effective than dextromethorphan at relieving the severity, frequency and bothersome nature of the cough. The medicine was slightly more effective than no treatment at all." See http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/dec/04/health.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=science

Now, if you really want to cure your cough, try this recipe:

To 1 gallon of distilled water, add 4 ounces of Horehound (dry). Reduce by simmering, so that when it is strained there will be 1 pint. To this add:

Compound Simple Syrup................2 ounces,
Glycerine...........................10 minims,
Honey (strained from honeycomb)....1/2 ounce.

Cut Balsam of Tolu 1 dram in 2 ounces of pure grain alcohol and add to solution.

Shake well together when the dose is taken, which would be half to a teaspoonful only occasionally, or when necessity requires.

And who prescribed the above? Edgar Cayce, in Reading 420-1, given October 14, 1933. According to Cayce: "This would cure anyone's cough!"

Soothing a sore throat is not the same as curing a cough.

Nothing like it, in fact.

[dirtywick]

Get em! It is just as bad here in the states...Head on...Zicam....

See a dollar grab it right?

:mad:

Sorry, quoting something off the first page and all, but...

Zicam is homeopathic?

I never tried it because I wasn't about to stick a Q-tip up my nose. I know a lot of people that swear by that stuff though. I think I even have some in the house, I'll dig it out of the medicine cabinet after I'm done posting this and take a look at the box.

[dirtywick]

haha I need to read the boxes more closely before I buy medicine! It says "homeopathic" in small print right on the front of the box. Now I have to convice everyone I know who buys that stuff that it's fraud.

Good thing I popped in to this thread though.

[Blue Wode]

Interesting to note that "[a] clinical trial has found that honey is more effective at soothing a sore throat than a common active ingredient in children's cough medicines . . . The team from Pennsylvania State University report today in the Archives of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine that honey was more effective than dextromethorphan at relieving the severity, frequency and bothersome nature of the cough. The medicine was slightly more effective than no treatment at all." See http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/dec/04/health.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=science



http://dcscience.net/?p=209

[BillyJoe]

http://www.library.nhs.uk/rss/newsAndRssArticle.aspx?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.librar y.nhs.uk%2fresources%2f%3fid%3d275788

The conclusion that honey is deemed better by parents than no treatment or dextromethorphan for symptomatic relief of cough and sleep difficulty due to URTI is not supported by the results presented. From the results presented, it seems that the significant difference seen between all three groups for the primary outcome was driven by the difference between honey and no treatment. Pairwise comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in the rating by parents between honey and dextromethorphan. However the small sample size of the trial, particularly in the dextromethorphan group, may account for this lack of statistically significant difference. This therefore indicates that further studies would be needed to investigate the suggested superiority of honey over dextromethorphan.


Anyway, what has this to do with homoeopathy?

[Rodney]

http://dcscience.net/?p=209

The most interesting part of the above article is the following statement: "It is already well known, from several good studies, that DM is useless, no better than placebo."

Compare that statement with Linda's post #265 on this thread:

"I will give you an illustrative example using Dextromethorphan.

"Looking only at controlled studies for acute cough (RCT's where appropriate)....

"There were 14 studies in animals and all were positive.
"There were 5 studies in humans using induced cough and all were positive.
"There were 5 studies in humans with acute upper respiratory tract infection and 3 were positive (one of the positive studies was a metanalysis of 6 other studies, but I'm only counting it as 1 instead of 6)."

So is DM useful or useless for cough?

[Rodney]

Anyway, what has this to do with homoeopathy?
This thread has basically discussed (with a few digressions) whether (non-homeopathic) OTC cough medicines have been proven to be more effective than homeopathic cough medicines.

[Nucular]

So is DM useful or useless for cough?

Well, given that the normally excellent DC didn't give us a reference to support his assertion that it's useless, and fls and others on this thread have given several papers to show that it isn't, unless you can produce the missing reference(s) yourself then for the purposes of this thread I'd say 'probably moderately useful'.

Which presumably means that honey is 'possibly moderately useful' for coughs, given that this we're talking about one ssmall study, which AFAIK none of us have actually read first hand.

But I'd repeat BillyJoe's question - what has the honey thing to do with homeopathy? And have you done the requisite trials on Cayce's remedy?

[fls]

Well, given that the normally excellent DC didn't give us a reference to support his assertion that it's useless, and fls and others on this thread have given several papers to show that it isn't, unless you can produce the missing reference(s) yourself then for the purposes of this thread I'd say 'probably moderately useful'.

We are all correct. The references I provided were for adults. The study with honey and DM was in children. The DM studies in children show that, in doses which are usually safe, DM is not useful (note that higher doses can show effectiveness but with the cost of undesirable side-effects).

Which presumably means that honey is 'possibly moderately useful' for coughs, given that this we're talking about one ssmall study, which AFAIK none of us have actually read first hand.

Excuse me! I don't talk about stuff I haven't bothered to check out first!
:)

But I'd repeat BillyJoe's question - what has the honey thing to do with homeopathy? And have you done the requisite trials on Cayce's remedy?

I commented on this point on this study in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3212200#post3212200).

"What the alt med people claim is that the traditional ways of identifying effective treatments - careful observation without controls or blinding, subjective perception as a measure of objective change, extrapolating on the basis of analogy rather than theory, etc. - are a useful way of identifying these treatments. However, that these methods can occasionally identify a truly effective treatment is not the issue. The issue is that these methods are unable to identify which treatments are ineffective (a much larger number), and they miss many more effects than they discover. That is, these methods produce a plethora of false-positives and false-negatives for only a few true-positives and true-negatives. And it is only the subsequent application of modern research techniques that sorts out which is which.

This study is actually ammo for the evidence-based crowd. While we were able to identify honey as a true-positive, the methods used by the alt med crowd were unable to distinguish between honey and other treatments that we know to be ineffective, such as vitamin C. We can discover that honey helps and vitamin C does not. The alt med people still cannot make that claim."

To make it relevant, simply substitute "homeopathy" for "vitamin C".

Linda

[Nucular]

We are all correct.

<snip>

Linda

Heh, apologies to anyone I've similarly slighted by drifting out of this thread and then drifting back in without reading it thoroughly enough - I think I was still a few points behind.

Also, I missed that whole other thread on the subject - interesting points, fls :)

[TX50]

Now, if you really want to cure your cough, try this recipe:

To 1 gallon of distilled water, add 4 ounces of Horehound (dry). Reduce by simmering, so that when it is strained there will be 1 pint. [...]

And who prescribed the above? Edgar Cayce, in Reading 420-1, given October 14, 1933. According to Cayce: "This would cure anyone's cough!"


There is some evidence that Horehound was also used by the Romans
as a cough medicine. In their case it was mixed with wine.

[Rodney]

Also, I missed that whole other thread on the subject . . .
Me too. I just posted a question there.

[exarch]

Again, there is some evidence that homeopathic remedies work, so it's a question of what standard of evidence is used.

There is only one standard of evidence: either there is evidence, or there isn't.

As far as homeopathy is concerned, there is no evidence. There isn't even any evidence it has any effect at all.

And to counter your predictable "but no effect is better than a bad side effect", yes, that's true, but at least with regular medicine, we know what's causing the "bad side effects", with homeopathy, the "aggravations" are simply discarded as the remedy being the right one but at the wrong dilution. In other words, people are far more likely to suffer serious injury or even death as a result of homeopathic medicine than they are as a result of regular medicine, because bad stuff happening isn't recognised as being bad stuff.
What's more, regular medicine has regulations in place to deal with events like that. Homeopathy just sweeps 'em under the rug I suppose, and tries something else instead, and keeps the patients dragging along until it hopefully goes away all on its own.
Or they may just get a slap on the wrist and a warning not to try and cure that kind of illness again.

Real medicine is taking its products off the shelves. Homeopathy is still happily chugging along making money for nothing.

[soylent]

There's no mechanism proposed to reset the memory of water; distilling or filtering will only make your medication more dillute and therefor stronger.

Seems to me, the ramifications of this is that industrial run-off, mercury, bird droppings, shark sperm, cremated ashes thrown into the ganges, remnants from the exxon-valdez oil spill and all sorts of silliness will completely overpower your homeopathic ingredients.

[Mojo]

There's no mechanism proposed to reset the memory of water


I think homoeopaths suggest that distilling the water does this, hence they use distilled, or double distilled, water to prepare potentised remedies.

However, because nobody has yet been able to detect the memory of water, they have no way of knowing whether this works.

[BillyJoe]

There's no mechanism proposed to reset the memory of water; distilling or filtering will only make your medication more dillute and therefor stronger.


Yeah, distilling the water re-sets the dial and succussion loads the dice.
There is no mechanism proposed or possible.
It cannot work.
The idea was just pulled out of someone's ass!

...which reminds me of that joke about homoeopathic toilet paper.


http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~sssogadr/afp/ccde05/ac005_choccyfingers.JPG

[Leifey]

Being a homeopath must be awesome. You basically give out water with people. Sometimes the water has salt in it, sometimes it has sand in it. Most of the time it's just water. Also, you talk to them, and you tell them that the water will somehow heal them. You need no education whatsoever and your salary is somehow higher than what a nurse would make.

Also, you get to lie to people right in their face without getting sued. I don't know if I'm psychopathic or just really amused by other people's stupidity and ignorance, but that would be the perfect job for me.

[devnull]

Saw an ad on TV earlier today for some sort of homeopathic junk (I live in Australia).

I just don't understand how they can get away with this kind of fraud.

[ninjamessiah]

Zicam is homeopathic?


I think it says on the box that it's homeopathic, but by my understanding of what homeopathy is, it's not homeopathic. I'm not sure. I do swear by the stuff though, I take the RapidMelts, I don't stick crap up my nose, especially after they got sued by people losing their sense of smell. For me it works exactly as it claims, my colds are shorter than usual and the symptoms are MUCH more bearable.

[fls]

I think it says on the box that it's homeopathic, but by my understanding of what homeopathy is, it's not homeopathic. I'm not sure. I do swear by the stuff though, I take the RapidMelts, I don't stick crap up my nose, especially after they got sued by people losing their sense of smell. For me it works exactly as it claims, my colds are shorter than usual and the symptoms are MUCH more bearable.

How do you know what the duration and symptoms of your cold would be without the Zicam? I don't think I've ever had two colds that were exactly the same.

Linda

[dirtywick]

It says on the box that the active ingredient is Zincum Gluconicum. Apparently, if this site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12509647&dopt=AbstractPlus) is to be trusted where they claimed to have run a double blind test confirms that it actually does something, but this site (http://www.zicam-smell-loss.com/) claims some tests show that, and some don't. However, a vast, vast majority of products that I could find that contain that stuff are homeopathic remedies, and according to the second site the loss of smell thing with zinc has been known since the 30's or earlier, so it does strike me as somewhat irresponsible regardless of it's effectiveness.

Alright, but here's the thing where my lack of education on the topic gets me: the test there uses 33mmol/l amount, which I have no idea what that is. The Zicam uses 2x amount, which again I have no idea what that is either. Could be that 2x is a lot less than 33mmol/l?

[Mojo]

Alright, but here's the thing where my lack of education on the topic gets me: the test there uses 33mmol/l amount, which I have no idea what that is. The Zicam uses 2x amount, which again I have no idea what that is either. Could be that 2x is a lot less than 33mmol/l?


The X refers to a tenfold dilution, and the 2 refers to the number of times it has been diluted (it's also shaken at each stage). 2X means that it is a one in one hundred dilution of whatever initial preparation (referred to as a "mother tincture") they used. Without knowing the concentration of the mother tincture, it is impossible to know from the label how much "Zincum Gluconicum" there is in it, although there is going to be at least some present so it's possible it has some sort of effect. Of course, to provide support for homoeopathy it would need to do a little more than that.