Homeopathic Cough Medicine

[Moochie]

My wife has a recurring cough that won't go away. She's a nonsmoker.

A work colleague suggested a "wonder remedy" which had been recommended to her by someone else. The colleague duly went out and bought the remedy and has waxed lyrical about its healing qualities ever since.

Describing this amazing substance, the colleague dropped the "H" word -- the cough medicine was homeopathic.

My wife, innately skeptical, although more so since I've been regaling her with the often humorous stories found right here in this forum, politely declined the recommendation, and asked her colleague if said colleague knew what "homeopathy" is. The colleague had no idea.

Seems to me that there are many people who have no idea what homeopathy is, and buy homeopathic products because these products are on the shelves alongside less suspect and even legitimate products, such as in health food stores and pharmacies. Seeing these bogus products in a pharmacy -- quite common here in Australia -- lends these products a legitimacy they do not deserve.

I have become so peeved at seeing this rubbish at my local pharmacy that I have threatened to withdraw my custom, declaring the pharmacy owner a seller of snake oil.

M.

P.S. My wife is seeing her doctor about the cough tomorrow.

[Overman]

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

See a dollar grab it right?

:mad:

[exarch]

And (if she hasn't already) have your wife explain to her colleague(s) what homeopathy is right away, before they've been absorbed by the nonsense too far to admit they just fooled themselves.

[Garrette]

My experience with those who use medicines that say they are homeopathic generally think it means "herbal" or "all natural" or some variation of that.

Those who would allow me to explain homeopathy's claims have, with rare exception, said "You've got to be kidding." I think some of them even stopped using the stuff, or at least reduced their usage. Or at least reduced their usage that is visible to me...

[Moochie]

And (if she hasn't already) have your wife explain to her colleague(s) what homeopathy is right away, before they've been absorbed by the nonsense too far to admit they just fooled themselves.

I've suggested my wife do just that, but with loving kindness. The colleague is rather young, and blithely follows fads just like we once did. :)

M.

[wahrheit]

... and asked her colleague if said colleague knew what "homeopathy" is. The colleague had no idea.

... before they've been absorbed by the nonsense too far to admit they just fooled themselves.

These two statements probably are the gist of 99,9% of my personal encounters with people who use homeopathic stuff or talk about homeopathy as "alternative" medicine. :mad:

[exarch]

Ditto :(

[Mojo]

My experience with those who use medicines that say they are homeopathic generally think it means "herbal" or "all natural" or some variation of that.If the colleage had no idea what homoeopathy actually is, it's quite possible that the cough medicine wasn't actually homoeopathic. Moochie, did your wife actually see the label?

[Rodney]

My wife has a recurring cough that won't go away. She's a nonsmoker.

A work colleague suggested a "wonder remedy" which had been recommended to her by someone else. The colleague duly went out and bought the remedy and has waxed lyrical about its healing qualities ever since.

Describing this amazing substance, the colleague dropped the "H" word -- the cough medicine was homeopathic. 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?

[Moochie]

If the colleage had no idea what homoeopathy actually is, it's quite possible that the cough medicine wasn't actually homoeopathic. Moochie, did your wife actually see the label?


No, the colleague did not have the bottle with her. She was, however, thrilled to be able to recommend a homeopathic medicine to someone senior in the company, and presumably thought she may have impressed by knowing a 5-syllable word.

M.

[wahrheit]

If the work colleague thinks she has been helped, what exactly is the problem?
I hilighted the problem in the quote :D

[Moochie]

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?

Nope. My goal is education.

I happen to think it's wrong to sell water as "medicine," at any price.

If people know what homeopathy is, and why it might seem to "work," they'll be less likely to be suckered. And the snake-oil salespeople will have to find legitimate employment.


M.

[Garrette]

If the colleage had no idea what homoeopathy actually is, it's quite possible that the cough medicine wasn't actually homoeopathic. Moochie, did your wife actually see the label?There are a couple of issues at work here:

1. Products are labled homeopathic

2. Products may or may not actually be prepared homeopathically, either because the producer doesn't himself/herself realize what it is or because they know it's bunk and diluting something 30M times isn't possible.

3. Customer knows the product is labeled homeopathic but doesn't find out what that means, nor what 30M or 10X or 20L mean.

The people I talk to are the customers described in #3.

[Mojo]

There are a couple of issues at work here:

1. Products are labled homeopathic

2. Products may or may not actually be prepared homeopathically, either because the producer doesn't himself/herself realize what it is or because they know it's bunk and diluting something 30M times isn't possible.

3. Customer knows the product is labeled homeopathic but doesn't find out what that means, nor what 30M or 10X or 20L mean.

The people I talk to are the customers described in #3.There's at least a fourth possibility: product is not labeled as homoeopathic, but customer confuses homoeopathy with herbalism or other types of "naturopathy" and describes it as homoeopathic.

[Rodney]

I hilighted the problem in the quote :D

Have any non-homeopathic cough medicines been shown to be efficacious in controlled tests? See http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929

[Rodney]

Nope. My goal is education.

I happen to think it's wrong to sell water as "medicine," at any price.

If people know what homeopathy is, and why it might seem to "work," they'll be less likely to be suckered. And the snake-oil salespeople will have to find legitimate employment.M.
And are you also crusading against all non-homeopathic products -- including those recommended by medical doctors -- that don't work?

[wahrheit]

Have any non-homeopathic cough medicines been shown to be efficacious in controlled tests? See http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929
I wasn't thinking specifically of cough medicine, but of homeopathy in general when posting that remark with a :D at the end. And for this discussion here it seems irrelevant to me if - for whatever medical condition - there does exist an effective non-homeopathic medicine or not.

[Moochie]

And are you also crusading against all non-homeopathic products -- including those recommended by medical doctors -- that don't work?

If the medicine is water, a resounding YES to that.

M.

[Rodney]

I wasn't thinking specifically of cough medicine, but of homeopathy in general when posting that remark with a :D at the end. And for this discussion here it seems irrelevant to me if - for whatever medical condition - there does exist an effective non-homeopathic medicine or not.
First, the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy is not as clear-cut as most people here seem to think. For example, according to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy -- "In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive."

Second, it is a well-established fact that a placebo effect exists with respect to many medicines. So why crusade against unproven, but otherwise harmless homeopathic medicines, while giving a free pass to unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines?

[Mojo]

Have any non-homeopathic cough medicines been shown to be efficacious in controlled tests? See http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929And are the manufacturers of non-homoeopathic cough medicines now claiming that DBPC tests are not an appropriate method of assessing their products?

[Rodney]

If the medicine is water, a resounding YES to that.

M.

Why only water?

[Mojo]

First, the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy is not as clear-cut as most people here seem to think. For example, according to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy -- "In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive." Try looking at some more recent meta-analyses.

[Rodney]

And are the manufacturers of non-homoeopathic cough medicines now claiming that DBPC tests are not an appropriate method of assessing their products?
I don't know, but how is that relevant? Either a cough medicine has been shown to be efficacious by objective testing or it has not been. The relevant question is whether homeopathic cough medicines that haven't shown to be efficacious by such testing should be treated differently than non-homeopathic cough medicines that haven't shown to be efficacious.

[Moochie]

First, the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy is not as clear-cut as most people here seem to think. For example, according to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy -- "In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive."

Second, it is a well-established fact that a placebo effect exists with respect to many medicines. So why crusade against unproven, but otherwise harmless homeopathic medicines, while giving a free pass to unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines?


Did these studies say anything about natural healing?

In regards to my OP, it did occur to me that the "efficacy" of the homeopathic cough medicine experienced by my wife's colleague may have been no more than her ailment having run its course.

In answer to your second point -- selling 8 oz of colored water for $12.95 is criminal.

We're not talking about "unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines" here. If you have any evidence of same, start a thread.

M.

[wahrheit]

Rodney, it seems to me you are talking about something completely different here than what this thread was about. So, there are non-homeopathic remedies out there with questionable efficacy, you say. Now why should that be equally treated like the total scam that homeopathy is??

[Mojo]

I don't know, but how is that relevant? Either a cough medicine has been shown to be efficacious by objective testing or it has not been. The relevant question is whether homeopathic cough medicines that haven't shown to be efficacious by such testing should be treated differently than non-homeopathic cough medicines that haven't shown to be efficacious.The point I was making is that homoeopaths have taken to claiming that their remedies cannot be tested by DBPC trials. If conventional medicines are found not to work in properly controlled trials, then their manufacturers can't really argue about that. Homoeopaths, on the other hand, simply claim that any test methods that show that homoeopathy doesn't work are somehow not appropriate to testing homoeopathy, and go in for the sort of uncontrolled customer satisfaction survey published by a group from Bristol last year as evidence that homoeopathy works.

[Rodney]

Did these studies say anything about natural healing?
I don't know, but what's the relevance?

In regards to my OP, it did occur to me that the "efficacy" of the homeopathic cough medicine experienced by my wife's colleague may have been no more than her ailment having run its course.
First, you don't know that for sure. Second, if it's true, how is that different from an M.D. prescribing a non-efficacious medicine, with the patient recovering because the ailment has run its course?

In answer to your second point -- selling 8 oz of colored water for $12.95 is criminal.
If consumers are dumb enough to pay $12.95 for 8 oz. of colored water, that's their problem -- not yours, mine, or the government's.

We're not talking about "unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines" here. If you have any evidence of same, start a thread.M.
But you're singling out this "homeopathic" (who knows if it even is?) cough medicine for special condemnation, when no over the counter cough medicines have been proven to be efficacious. I don't have any interest in starting another thread because I don't mind that unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines, are sold.

[Rodney]

Rodney, it seems to me you are talking about something completely different here than what this thread was about. So, there are non-homeopathic remedies out there with questionable efficacy, you say. Now why should that be equally treated like the total scam that homeopathy is??
The jury is still out on the efficacy of homeopathy and even if it is ultimately proven not to be at all efficacious, that would not prove it's a scam.

[Rodney]

The point I was making is that homoeopaths have taken to claiming that their remedies cannot be tested by DBPC trials. If conventional medicines are found not to work in properly controlled trials, then their manufacturers can't really argue about that. Homoeopaths, on the other hand, simply claim that any test methods that show that homoeopathy doesn't work are somehow not appropriate to testing homoeopathy, and go in for the sort of uncontrolled customer satisfaction survey published by a group from Bristol last year as evidence that homoeopathy works. So why not let consumers evaluate the evidence and decide whether they want to purchase homeopathic medicines?

[wahrheit]

The jury is still out on the efficacy of homeopathy and even if it is ultimately proven not to be at all efficacious, that would not prove it's a scam.

This is not about a jury proving that homeopathy is _not_ efficacious. For me it would be good enough if homeopathy would prove it's efficaciousness (phew - is that actually a word??). It's their claim, not mine, that it works.

[Deus Ex Machina]

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?

The problem is obvious - maybe this colleague plans to vacation in Africa and now decides to take the Homeopathic "alternative" for malaria instead of getting properly vaccinated.

Then she gets a real disease that she is going to have a hard time wishing away by drinking distilled water.

[Moochie]

I don't know, but what's the relevance?

It would tend to show the uselessness of the homeopathic "medicine."

First, you don't know that for sure. Second, if it's true, how is that different from an M.D. prescribing a non-efficacious medicine, with the patient recovering because the ailment has run its course?

We're talking about a specific homeopathic cough medicine here, for the second or third time.

If consumers are dumb enough to pay $12.95 for 8 oz. of colored water, that's their problem -- not yours, mine, or the government's.

That's where you and I differ.

But you're singling out this "homeopathic" (who knows if it even is?) cough medicine for special condemnation, when no over the counter cough medicines have been proven to be efficacious.

I trust you have some evidence for that. From what I've read, there's no cure for the common cold, but that the medicinal cough mixtures do suppress symptoms, and allow a person to have a night's sleep.

If OTC cough mixtures need research, then let it happen. The facts are already in for homeopathic "medicines" -- i.e., there are no detectable active ingredients present. In other words, it's water and/or sugar pills.

I don't have any interest in starting another thread because I don't mind that unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines, are sold.

Fair enough, but I do care. Whether the label says "homeopathic" or anything else, if it's a scam, I want those responsible held to account.

M.

[Moochie]

The problem is obvious - maybe this colleague plans to vacation in Africa and now decides to take the Homeopathic "alternative" for malaria instead of getting properly vaccinated.

Then she gets a real disease that she is going to have a hard time wishing away by drinking distilled water.

Excellent point. It is exactly at this juncture that the weasel words of the apologists, and those with vested interests, break down.

M.

[ponderingturtle]

First, the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy is not as clear-cut as most people here seem to think. For example, according to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy -- "In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive."


Sounds like a case of garbage in, garbage out. You can analyze the data all you want, if it is corrupted by bias it will always be worthless.

[CriticalThanking]

I have run across several products touting homeopathic preparation, but they list active ingredients at only 1, 2, or 5x. People still are aghast when I point out what homeopathic really means. That or they choose to ignore me and go with what their friend/relative/total stranger told them cured a friend of an acquaintance somewhere.

CT

[ponderingturtle]

The jury is still out on the efficacy of homeopathy and even if it is ultimately proven not to be at all efficacious, that would not prove it's a scam.

Good to know that the jury is still out on if modern chemistry has any basis in reality, I am sure Dupont is waiting with baited breath to know of they have spent the last 100 years doing pointless things like inventing nylon and Kevlar based on ideas that can not possibly work.

[Deus Ex Machina]

The jury is still out on the efficacy of homeopathy and even if it is ultimately proven not to be at all efficacious, that would not prove it's a scam.

poppycock.

There is no "jury still out". Homeopathy has not proven one damned thing in its entire existence.

Not one.

The only people who try and perpetuate the "jury still out" twaddle are homeos themselves.

[ponderingturtle]

If consumers are dumb enough to pay $12.95 for 8 oz. of colored water, that's their problem -- not yours, mine, or the government's.


So are you in favor or decrimilalizing con games? If you are dumb enough to believe that you are being contacted to help someone in nigeria get their money out of swiss banks you desearve to lose your money?

How is the one so different from the other?

[Rodney]

The problem is obvious - maybe this colleague plans to vacation in Africa and now decides to take the Homeopathic "alternative" for malaria instead of getting properly vaccinated.

Then she gets a real disease that she is going to have a hard time wishing away by drinking distilled water.A rather large leap from a homeopathic cough medicine to a homeopathic alternative for malaria. And who, exactly, is recommending the latter?

[Rodney]

Sounds like a case of garbage in, garbage out. You can analyze the data all you want, if it is corrupted by bias it will always be worthless. What makes you think that the three professors of medicine who performed the analysis were biased? They weren't homeopaths.

[Rodney]

I trust you have some evidence for that. From what I've read, there's no cure for the common cold, but that the medicinal cough mixtures do suppress symptoms, and allow a person to have a night's sleep.
I gave you the Web MD link that discusses the non-efficacy of over-the-counter cough medicines. Here it is again -- http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929
Excerpt: "When a cold or flu hits, many people reach for over-the-counter cough medicines. But do they really work? A researcher has analyzed results of 15 trials, finding no real proof that they do anything."

[ponderingturtle]

What makes you think that the three professors of medicine who performed the analysis were biased? They weren't homeopaths.

If they where only looking at data, and not fine details of how the experiment was conducted they have no protection from the bias that the people running the experiment had.

Then there is also the potential for willfully corruption of data.

Homeopathy violates the principles that all of organic chemistry, and biochemistry and so on have learned about how things work. If it is true then a great many other things must be wrong. Chemotherapy must be the wrong approach because it goes against all homeopathic theory, if homeopathy is right.

Everything we know about how medicine, and every well conducted double blind experiment says homeopathy doesn't/can't work. And homeopathy's response is to say that double blind experiments are a bad tool for measuring the effectiveness of their product and you need to use techniques that are known to introduce bias and skew the results the way the people carrying out it want it to go.

[ponderingturtle]

I gave you the Web MD link that discusses the non-efficacy of over-the-counter cough medicines. Here it is again -- http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929
Excerpt: "When a cold or flu hits, many people reach for over-the-counter cough medicines. But do they really work? A researcher has analyzed results of 15 trials, finding no real proof that they do anything."

In reading the article as you seem to it would mean that, Antihistamines, Codine and so on do absolutely nothing. Is this your claim?

[Rodney]

So are you in favor or decrimilalizing con games? If you are dumb enough to believe that you are being contacted to help someone in nigeria get their money out of swiss banks you desearve to lose your money?

How is the one so different from the other?First, you assume that homeopathy is a scam or a con game. Do you have evidence that, not only does it not work, but that its proponents know that it does not work? Second, do you disagree that homeopathic medicines can have a placebo effect? Third, if the government bans homeopathic medicines on the grounds that their efficacy has not been demonstrated, do you want all products banned when their efficacy has not been demonstrated?

[ponderingturtle]

First, you assume that homeopathy is a scam or a con game.

I sell you something that can not possibly work, that seems to be a definition of con game to me, or at least a class of cons.

Do you have evidence that, not only does it not work, but that its proponents know that it does not work?

It violates everything known about chemistry, a 30x dilution is impossible you will not have any ingredient in the medicine you are buying. Even their most concentrated dilutions if possible to make would do nothing.

If I sell you a car that runs on water, in direct opposition to everything that is known about chemistry and thermodynamics in the same ways that homeopathy is in opposition to everything that is known about chemistry and biology, am I running a con?

Second, do you disagree that homeopathic medicines can have a placebo effect?

Horse[RULE8] Has a placebo effect, should I be able to mark manure as medicine and sell it in health food stores?

Third, if the government bans homeopathic medicines on the grounds that their efficacy has not been demonstrated, do you want all products banned when their efficacy has not been demonstrated?

YES. Any claims that have not been tested and shown to be valid should not be able to be made. These things cause people to die all the time because they believe people who are making money off of them and not seeing it for the con that it is.

[Psiload]

These two statements probably are the gist of 99,9% of my personal encounters with people who use homeopathic stuff or talk about homeopathy as "alternative" medicine. :mad: I've noticed that even some of the people who manufacture and sell "homeopathic" products don't seem to understand the term 'homeopathy'.

For instance...

http://www.sinusbuster.com/

A homeopathic line of natural nasal health sprays from the makers of "Sinus Buster Pepper Nasal Spray"

Homeopathic remedies are normally based on natural ingredients. Homeopathy works in harmony with your immune system, unlike some conventional medicines which suppress the immune system. Homeopathic remedies are not addictive. Homeopathy is holistic. It treats all the symptoms as one, which in practical terms means that it addresses the cause, not the symptoms.

Ingredients: Oleoresin Capsicum, Kava Kava extract, Marshmallow Root extract, Guarana Seed extract, Spearmint Oil, Grapefruit Seed Extract, Ascorbic Acid, Citric Acid, Vegetable Glycerin and Purified Water.

Sorry, Wayne... that ain't homeopathy. Yes, go ahead and hang your head in shame.

http://sinusbuster.com/thestory/images/wayspray2.jpg

[wahrheit]

I've noticed that even some of the people who manufacture and sell "homeopathic" products don't seem to understand the term 'homeopathy'.

For instance...


Sadly, these folks don't really care. They just throw in some of the typical b*ll words, "holistic", "natural" blah blah and people will buy it. Herbal, homeopathic - doesn't matter to them.


Nice interpretation of the image from their site :D

[ponderingturtle]

I've noticed that even some of the people who manufacture and sell "homeopathic" products don't seem to understand the term 'homeopathy'.

For instance...

http://www.sinusbuster.com/



Sorry, Wayne... that ain't homeopathy. Yes, go ahead and hang your head in shame.

http://sinusbuster.com/thestory/images/wayspray2.jpg

So this was a guy who decided pepper spray needed to be shot up his nose to fix his cold? And I can see how it might make you forget about a headache, if their concentration is of capsicum is anything close to what they are hinting at it would be hotter than any chili

[Psiload]

So this was a guy who decided pepper spray needed to be shot up his nose to fix his cold? And I can see how it might make you forget about a headache, if their concentration is of capsicum is anything close to what they are hinting at it would be hotter than any chili

Actually... I'm in the process of developing a headache remedy along these same lines. I'm going to market it under the brand name...

Hammer to the Kneecap (patent pending)

[JoeTheJuggler]

The theoretical basis of homeopathy is absurd. Nothing in chemistry supports the "law of infinitesimals" and nothing supports the "law of similars".

To claim these "remedies" (sorry--you certainly cannot call them "medicines" because they aren't) will relieve any symptoms is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and even you, Rodney, should agree that that sort of proof does not exist.

Rodney, many of these preparations are so dilute that it is virtually certain that not a single molecule of the active ingredient is left. (Someone calculated that a 30C preparation means you'd have one drop of ingredient in a volume of water the size of the solar system--or something similar.) Most of them are beyond the cleanliness and controls available in a common production plant. There's no science at all supporting the idea that water somehow "remembers" being in contact with the active ingredient (and if there were, then wouldn't water "remember" being in contact with all the other substances that it constantly cycles in and through?).

[luchog]

Just as an aside, although the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy pretty well debunks it's effectiveness; the article on Hahnemann himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Friedrich_Samuel_Hahnemann[/url) reads almost like an advertisement for it.

[exarch]

... while giving a free pass to unproven, but otherwise harmless non-homeopathic medicines?

Care to give an example?

[exarch]

If consumers are dumb enough to pay $12.95 for 8 oz. of colored water, that's their problem -- not yours, mine, or the government's.

If some guy says he's going to fix your roof and then just messes around a bit up there, replaces a few shingles, then charges you $400 for it, having fixed nothing at all, that's your problem? Not the government's? Not mine? What if I'm his next customer? I don't want to pay some shyster $400 for doing a piss-poor job.

Your attitude sucks Rodney. You're basicvally condoning theft.
I someone steals your wallet or your car? Well, that's your problem isn't it?
Tell you what, next time it happens to you, tell the police to sod off and mind their own business why don't you?

Meanwhile, I'll be reporting the theft in the hopes that the criminals can be brought to justice. Whether they're stealing cars or selling quackery and snake-oils.

[exarch]

The jury is still out on the efficacy of homeopathy and even if it is ultimately proven not to be at all efficacious, that would not prove it's a scam.

Ehm, that's exactly what would prove it a scam actually.

And most research seems to have already convinced the jury that homeopathy is ultimately not efficacious. In other words, we pretty much know it doesn't work, research has shown it doesn't work better than placebo, but people are still selling it and saying it does work. That is, by definition, a scam. Plain and simple.

Anything else is just making excuses and being dishonest.

[DanKirby]

Sadly, these folks don't really care. They just throw in some of the typical b*ll words, "holistic", "natural" blah blah and people will buy it. Herbal, homeopathic - doesn't matter to them.

At least they didn't use "quantum"...

[Rodney]

I sell you something that can not possibly work, that seems to be a definition of con game to me, or at least a class of cons.It's a con only if you know it can't work.

It violates everything known about chemistry, a 30x dilution is impossible you will not have any ingredient in the medicine you are buying. Even their most concentrated dilutions if possible to make would do nothing. That's the current conventional wisdom, but history tells us that the conventional wisdom often proves wrong.

If I sell you a car that runs on water, in direct opposition to everything that is known about chemistry and thermodynamics in the same ways that homeopathy is in opposition to everything that is known about chemistry and biology, am I running a con?If you know that the car can't run on water, yes. But in that case, the con would be quickly exposed.

Horse[RULE8] Has a placebo effect, should I be able to mark manure as medicine and sell it in health food stores?No, because it would likely cause harm.

YES. Any claims that have not been tested and shown to be valid should not be able to be made.So do you prevent all products that have not been shown to be valid from being sold?

These things cause people to die all the time because they believe people who are making money off of them and not seeing it for the con that it is.
Homeopathic cough medicine causes "people to die all the time'?

[Silly Green Monkey]

That's the current conventional wisdom, but history tells us that the conventional wisdom often proves wrong.
Homeopathic cough medicine causes "people to die all the time'?

It's not 'conventional wisdom', it's MATH.

And dying people who take homeopathic medicine (not cough medicine) instead of real medicine will still die.

[Rodney]

Care to give an example?
I already have: All OTC cough medicines.

[Dogdoctor]

Instructions on how to learn homeopathy. Take a book on homeopathy and grind it up into little pieces. Do 30 serial dilutions of 1 to 100 (initially one part book to 100 parts water). Be very careful when taking the resulting liquid since it may make you so smart your brains might fall out of your head.

[Rodney]

It's not 'conventional wisdom', it's MATH. Math has been used to show that all kinds of things that we now know are true couldn't possibly happen; rogue waves, to name one. If a problem is specified incorrectly, math can't solve it.

And dying people who take homeopathic medicine (not cough medicine) instead of real medicine will still die.
I think you'll find that dying people who take "real medicine" will also still die. ;)

[Rodney]

If some guy says he's going to fix your roof and then just messes around a bit up there, replaces a few shingles, then charges you $400 for it, having fixed nothing at all, that's your problem? Not the government's? Not mine? What if I'm his next customer? I don't want to pay some shyster $400 for doing a piss-poor job.

Your attitude sucks Rodney. You're basicvally condoning theft.
I someone steals your wallet or your car? Well, that's your problem isn't it?
Tell you what, next time it happens to you, tell the police to sod off and mind their own business why don't you?

Meanwhile, I'll be reporting the theft in the hopes that the criminals can be brought to justice. Whether they're stealing cars or selling quackery and snake-oils. Again, you are equating homeopathy and fraud with no evidence. If you have evidence that homeopaths know that their treatments don't work and are still charging for them, let's hear the evidence.

[exarch]

First, you assume that homeopathy is a scam or a con game. Do you have evidence that, not only does it not work, but that its proponents know that it does not work?

Whether or not the proponents know it's nonsense is not important to the fact that it's still a scam. Homeopathy is being marketed and sold as something it's not. This is a scam.

And there's plenty of evidence that homeopathy doesn't work. Tons of evidence. And no decent evidence that shows homeopathy to be effective at all. But its proponents, rather than looking at the evidence and realizing it's a scam, prefer to turn a blind eye and keep on happily making loads of money selling water and sugar tablets and pretend it's medication.

Second, do you disagree that homeopathic medicines can have a placebo effect?

Of course not. The only effect they have is a placebo effect.
But to go selling it and saying it's medication when it's only a placebo is just plain criminal.
And in case you didn't know, even doctors aren't allowed to prescribe placebo without their patient's knowledge. It sounds silly, because once the patient knows, the placebo effect is gone, right? But even so, they're not allowed to, because then they'd be scamming their patients, which is immoral.
The only placebo they can prescribe is for kids, if they tell the parents. Or they could prescribe aspirin for something that they know (but the patient doesn't) cannot be cured by aspirin.

Third, if the government bans homeopathic medicines on the grounds that their efficacy has not been demonstrated, do you want all products banned when their efficacy has not been demonstrated?

Isn't that how it is already? With real medications anyway? They have to undergo rigourous testing. Only when they pass all the safety and efficacy tests can they be sold.
This is the main reason why so many people are upset by the free pass that homeopathy is getting. They haven't undergone any testing at all. And when they are tested, they show no effect.

So yes dammit, they need to be banned.
The moment they're being prescribed as "medicine", the prescriber should be fined for swindling their patient.
The moment they make therapeutic claims on their packaging, the manufacturer should be fined for fraud.
The moment they make any kind of claim about their product that has not yet been proven in a test, they should get the pants sued off them for being bloody liars. Because that's what they are.
The only thing that's going to put a stop to this nonsense is hard action in response to any transgression of the rules. And for that we need to have some holes in the rules patched up first.

[exarch]

I already have: All OTC cough medicines.

Uhm, no, the common cold is known to currently be uncurable. What cold medicine does is alleviate the symptoms. What homeopathy does is ... nothing at all.

Care to give another example? Perhaps this time one that actually proves your point?

[exarch]

I think you'll find that dying people who take "real medicine" will also still die. ;)

Now you're just being silly. What about diabetes for starters?
Tetanus?
Rabies?
Apendectomy?
Heart surgery?

Now that's "real medicine" saving lives every day. All problems that would kill if left untreated. All problems that homeopathy has luckily left alone for now. Would that perhaps be because they know that once they get into that, their odds of being accepted as a "safe" alternative will rapidly dwindle and disappear altogether? Hmmm ...

[Rodney]

Isn't that how it is already? With real medications anyway? They have to undergo rigourous testing. Only when they pass all the safety and efficacy tests can they be sold. Are you now trying to draw a distinction between "real medications" and other medications, such as OTC cough medicines? If not, you have to explain how all of the OTC cough medicines got on the market with government approval. If so, where do you draw the line? For example, if a new cancer drug is claimed by a reputable manufacturer to cure pancreatic or liver cancer, but it has not yet undergone rigorous testing that has established its efficacy, should that drug be banned?

[exarch]

Again, you are equating homeopathy and fraud with no evidence.

Define "no evidence". If you consider 200 years of testing showing that homeopathy performs no better than placebo to be "no evidence", then yes, you're absolutely right.

Of course, if we used that same definition of "no evidence", we'd still be into things like bloodletting. So luckily, we're using another definition than yours.

If you have evidence that homeopaths know that their treatments don't work and are still charging for them, let's hear the evidence.

As said before, whether or not homeopaths know their treatments are ineffective is unimportant. The fact that their treatments are ineffective and being sold as if they are, is what makes it a scam.
Further more, homeopaths have already been told this over and over, and they're just not listening. The only possible explanations are that they either don't care they're ripping people off, or they're deluded and think they personally know better than 200 years of medical and scientific advancement.

[exarch]

Are you now trying to draw a distinction between "real medications" and other medications, such as OTC cough medicines? If not, you have to explain how all of the OTC cough medicines got on the market with government approval.

Are you suggesting that over the counter medication has not been tested for safety and efficacy? Tell me, in which country do you live right now? Is it below the equator? In Asia? Mexico maybe?

If so, where do you draw the line? For example, if a new cancer drug is claimed by a reputable manufacturer to cure pancreatic or liver cancer, but it has not yet undergone rigorous testing that has established its efficacy, should that drug be banned?

It should not be banned, it should be tested. Which is exactly what happens when it's used in a trial run in hospitals. People with pancreatic cancer are entered into a testing program for this new drug, then a bunch of them get the new drug, the rest get the old treatment, or if no old treatment exists, a placebo. Then the test results show if the drug is effective compared to placebo, or more effective than the old one, or has less undesirable side effects than the previous treatment, etc...

Should it be banned from being sold over the counter or for general use?
You bet.

Should it be banned from being used?
Not at all. The very testing of the drug requires it being used on real live patients. So this is what happens with new, experimental drugs. They get used in experiments that decide whether it's safe and effective or not.

But you see Rodney, none of this matters, because the few homeopathic remedies that have even made it this far (i.e. get tested for efficacy) have never gotten beyond this stage. There is no homepathic treatment on the face of this earth that has passed a properly designed double blind placebo controlled drug trial. And the ones that did were later found to be in trials so badly designed so as not to be worthy of the name "double blind" or "controlled".

[Rodney]

Uhm, no, the common cold is known to currently be uncurable. What cold medicine does is alleviate the symptoms. What homeopathy does is ... nothing at all. Uhm, this thread is titled "Homeopathic Cough Medicine" and so my example could not be more relevant. Also, what makes you think that non-homeopathic cough medicines alleviate symptoms better than homeopathic ones? Can you cite a study?

Care to give another example? Perhaps this time one that actually proves your point? Again, my point is already proven. ;) However, as you note, the common cold is known to currently be uncurable and yet billions of dollars are spent on non-homeopathic cold medications. Again, do they work better than homeopathic ones? And again, if you say yes, can you cite a study?

[exarch]

Uhm, this thread is titled "Homeopathic Cough Medicine" and so my example could not be more relevant. Also, what makes you think that non-homeopathic cough medicines alleviate symptoms better than homeopathic ones? Can you cite a study?

I don't think there has ever been a study comparing OTC cold medication against homeopathy. You see, in general, drug manufaturers are only interested in finding out the efficacy of their own medications, and so they're not really interested in doing the homeopath's work for them. Seeing how these kinds of drug trials are a rather costly matter, I can't say I blame them. Maybe they should though, so we could finally put this matter to rest and bury homeopathy alongside all the other quack medications that got out of style.

But, right, I forgot: the homeopaths are just going to ignore this trial, like they have all the others that have so far shown that homeopathy does jack-diddly.

Again, my point is already proven. ;)

Is it?

However, as you note, the common cold is known to currently be uncurable and yet billions of dollars are spent on non-homeopathic cold medications. Again, do they work better than homeopathic ones? And again, if you say yes, can you cite a study?

I think there actually has been a study done testing a homeopathic cold remedy against placebo. I can't cite it right away though. Maybe someone else has a link to it handy.
But I'm pretty sure one conclusion was made: They found that the homeopathic remedy cured people's cold in one week, while the placebo group took 7 days to get better.

I know what I'm going to do next time I have a cold:
drink lots of fluids and keep warm.

[logical muse]

... I think some of them even stopped using the stuff, or at least reduced their usage. Or at least reduced their usage that is visible to me...

Surely that would make it more effective?

[John Jackson]

Whether OTC cough medicines work or not has absolutely no bearing on whether OTC homeopathic remedies work or not. The point is irrelevant.

It was used recently in the House of Lords debate here in the UK by Baroness Barker who stated, “Most of the orthodox equivalents for those conditions would be over-the-counter medicines, which probably have efficacy rates that are equally contentious” whilst defending the sale of homeopathic remedies for minor self-limiting conditions.

It’s simply the ‘two wrongs make a right’ fallacy.

If manufacturers of cough medicines are making false or exaggerated claims for their products then that should be put right; however, if they are making false or exaggerated claims, it is not a justification for selling other products with false claims about their efficacy (and this certainly is the case with homeopathic remedies).

[Mojo]

Instructions on how to learn homeopathy. Take a book on homeopathy and grind it up into little pieces. Do 30 serial dilutions of 1 to 100 (initially one part book to 100 parts water). Be very careful when taking the resulting liquid since it may make you so smart your brains might fall out of your head.Peter Bowditch has a much better training course for homoeopaths, outlined in his article Homeopathy - all the idiocy that fits (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy.htm): 1. Remove the brain. It does not have to come out in one piece, so any method may be used which does not damage the skull too much.
2. Blend the brain with 10 times its weight in sand.
3. Take 10% of the mixture and blend that with 10 times its weight in sand.
4. Repeat step 3 20 times.
5. Pour the final mixture back into the cavity where the brain was.
6. If the brain was removed by trepanning or arthroscopy, seal the hole in the skull with a cork (do not use a rubber bung). If the entire top of the skull was removed, put the top back on carefully and apply an electric current vertically until the bone knits again.
7. Succuss the head twice on each side with a brick.
8. Award certificate of competence. He also notes that some courses miss out steps 1 to 6...

[Nucular]

It’s simply the ‘two wrongs make a right’ fallacy.

Absolutely true. Nevertheless...

Also, what makes you think that non-homeopathic cough medicines alleviate symptoms better than homeopathic ones? Can you cite a study?

There have been many studies into the effects of non-homeopathic, non-antiviral or antibacterial cough and cold treatments. Seven Cochrane reviews have been conducted to summarise the research, and these were themselves reviewed by Arroll (2005) in Respiratory Medicine.

Long story short:

Many OTC cough/cold treatments contain decongestants such as oxymetazoline, phenylpropanolamine, norphedrine and pseudoephedrine. In single-dose studies, each of these chemicals, delivered orally or nasally depending on the advised method ingestion) showed a decongestant benefit above placebo. Not enough data exist to evaluate multi-dose administration.

Antitussives (for acute cough) were found to have more equivocal evidence in favour of their efficacy: codeine showed no effect above placebo for the cough itself (though probably makes people feel better in other ways), and dextromethorphan was shown to be effective in two studies, whilst a third showed no benefit over placebo. Moguisteine showed benefit only in a subgroup of patients (those with a more severe acute night cough).

Guaifenesin, an expectorant, was shown to decrease self-reported cough when compared to placebo, and also significantly reduced sputum thickness. Bisolvon linctus, a mucolytic, was found to reduce cough compared with placebo - albeit in only one study. Another mucolytic, letosteine, was found to show reduce coughing in children.

In addition to all of these, various combinations of these medications, sometimes with an antihistamine, were shown to have varying levels of effectiveness.

So, whilst more high-quality evidence is required, it is clear that some of the ingredients of common OTC cough and cold remedies do have reasonable clinical trials supporting their efficacy.

If you like, I could give you the references of the Cochrane reviews, and the individual trials, but only if you're going to actually do domething with them. I can also give you a copy of the Arroll paper if you wish.

So Rodney, perhaps now you could cite a study supporting homeopathic cough/cold remedies, or admit that non-homeopathic cough/cold remedies do indeed have considerably more evidence in their favour?





(Incidentally, the reason I'm replying like this is that, although John Jackson and others are absolutely right in saying that it's a 'two wrongs make a right' fallacy to say that 'OTC medicines don't work, therefore we should continue to sell homeopathic remedies', I do think there is a potential point there for hypocrisy on our part. I personally think all OTC medicines should have gone through proper clinical trials before they can make claims to treat certain conditions, homeopathic or not. So, I oppose the sale of those which have not. However, it is also the case that homeopathy, as an entire 'system' of medicine, with no evidence in its favour, yet growing in popularity and in direct contradiction to modern science, is an infinitely more insidious and subverting influence than many other things which are poorly evidenced. So, my priorities would be towards addressing homeopathy more urgently, but of course it is a false dilemma - we should be addressing all such things.)

[Rodney]

There have been many studies into the effects of non-homeopathic, non-antiviral or antibacterial cough and cold treatments. Seven Cochrane reviews have been conducted to summarise the research, and these were themselves reviewed by Arroll (2005) in Respiratory Medicine.

Long story short:

Many OTC cough/cold treatments contain decongestants such as oxymetazoline, phenylpropanolamine, norphedrine and pseudoephedrine. In single-dose studies, each of these chemicals, delivered orally or nasally depending on the advised method ingestion) showed a decongestant benefit above placebo. Not enough data exist to evaluate multi-dose administration.

Antitussives (for acute cough) were found to have more equivocal evidence in favour of their efficacy: codeine showed no effect above placebo for the cough itself (though probably makes people feel better in other ways), and dextromethorphan was shown to be effective in two studies, whilst a third showed no benefit over placebo. Moguisteine showed benefit only in a subgroup of patients (those with a more severe acute night cough).

Guaifenesin, an expectorant, was shown to decrease self-reported cough when compared to placebo, and also significantly reduced sputum thickness. Bisolvon linctus, a mucolytic, was found to reduce cough compared with placebo - albeit in only one study. Another mucolytic, letosteine, was found to show reduce coughing in children.

In addition to all of these, various combinations of these medications, sometimes with an antihistamine, were shown to have varying levels of effectiveness.

So, whilst more high-quality evidence is required, it is clear that some of the ingredients of common OTC cough and cold remedies do have reasonable clinical trials supporting their efficacy.

If you like, I could give you the references of the Cochrane reviews, and the individual trials, but only if you're going to actually do domething with them. I can also give you a copy of the Arroll paper if you wish.

So Rodney, perhaps now you could cite a study supporting homeopathic cough/cold remedies, or admit that non-homeopathic cough/cold remedies do indeed have considerably more evidence in their favour?
Thanks for the information. However, it remains unclear whether any OTC cough medicine is efficacious above placebo. Has any study ever found that? Again, consider this quote from the Feb. 2002 Web MD article: "We found that there is little evidence for or against the effectiveness of over-the-counter cough medicines," says lead author Knut Schroeder, MD, researcher at University of Bristol, England. The fact that some ingredients of OTC cough medicines appear to be slightly useful does not necessarily mean that any specific OTC cough medicine is efficacious. And it is also unclear whether there has been a study of homeopathic versus non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines. If there has been, please advise.

[Mojo]

Math has been used to show that all kinds of things that we now know are true couldn't possibly happen; rogue waves, to name one. Do you have any evidence for this? I remember a thread discussing a now defunct oceanograpic model that predicted that rogue waves would be very much rarer than they now appear to be, but I don't remember any mention of a mathematical proof that they are impossible.

[Almo]

My experience with those who use medicines that say they are homeopathic generally think it means "herbal" or "all natural" or some variation of that.

Those who would allow me to explain homeopathy's claims have, with rare exception, said "You've got to be kidding." I think some of them even stopped using the stuff, or at least reduced their usage. Or at least reduced their usage that is visible to me...

Yeah, my mother-in-law did that. She had no idea. I explained it, she flipped out, and stopped buying it.

[Mojo]

Thanks for the information. However, it remains unclear whether any OTC cough medicine is efficacious above placebo. How about reading what Nucular posted? So, whilst more high-quality evidence is required, it is clear that some of the ingredients of common OTC cough and cold remedies do have reasonable clinical trials supporting their efficacy.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Uhm, this thread is titled "Homeopathic Cough Medicine" and so my example could not be more relevant. Also, what makes you think that non-homeopathic cough medicines alleviate symptoms better than homeopathic ones? Can you cite a study?

Again, my point is already proven. ;) However, as you note, the common cold is known to currently be uncurable and yet billions of dollars are spent on non-homeopathic cold medications. Again, do they work better than homeopathic ones? And again, if you say yes, can you cite a study?

you haven't managed to cite a study that shows anything about homeopathy other than it "may" have some placebo effect.

As homeos don't want any studies done (of course) then there is nothing to compare.

On the other hand you yourself may go to the websites of any of the manufacturers of cold and flu remedies and look up their studies. Go ahead - knock yourself out. You can find the studies.

You won't have any homeo studies to compare them with of course..

[Rodney]

How about reading what Nucular posted?
How about reading what I posted? "The fact that some ingredients of OTC cough medicines appear to be slightly useful does not necessarily mean that any specific OTC cough medicine is efficacious." If I'm wrong, let me know the name of a specific OTC cough medicine that has been shown to be efficacious, so that I can buy it the next time I have a cough.

[Rodney]

Do you have any evidence for this? I remember a thread discussing a now defunct oceanograpic model Funny how the conventional wisdom often becomes defunct. ;)

that predicted that rogue waves would be very much rarer than they now appear to be, but I don't remember any mention of a mathematical proof that they are impossible. Okay, fine. The "now defunct" models predicted a rogue wave every 10,000 years, which is why well-documented accounts of rogue waves were discounted by the oceanographic establishment.

[Garrette]

How about reading what I posted? "The fact that some ingredients of OTC cough medicines appear to be slightly useful does not necessarily mean that any specific OTC cough medicine is efficacious." If I'm wrong, let me know the name of a specific OTC cough medicine that has been shown to be efficacious, so that I can buy it the next time I have a cough.I can't add much to this discussion, but I want to emphasize a couple of things:

1. Yes, if there is a non-homeopathic, mainstream, OTC medicine that makes invalid claims, it should be removed.

2. There is a vast difference between claiming to alleviate symptoms and claiming to cure the underlying affliction. OTC cough medicine does the former. Homeopathic products does the latter.

[Mojo]

Okay, fine. The "now defunct" models predicted a rogue wave every 10,000 years, which is why well-documented accounts of rogue waves were discounted by the oceanographic establishment.I don't remember much in the way of well-documented accounts; just anecdotes.

[Moochie]

Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

[John Jackson]

Thanks for the information. However, it remains unclear whether any OTC cough medicine is efficacious above placebo.

OK, let's assume (ignoring the info that Nucular posted ;)) that all OTC cough medicines are absolutely useless.

How does that add any weight to the claims that homeopathy therefore works or that it should also be sold OTC?

Where's the logic in your argument?

[ponderingturtle]

It's a con only if you know it can't work.

So ignorance can remove responsibility in this case. How does that work as a general legal principle though? I thought he would come back from the dead is an acceptable defense in murder?

That's the current conventional wisdom, but history tells us that the conventional wisdom often proves wrong.
Not really, in the past conventional wisdom was rarely based on extensive testing, now it is. If it works then all modern chemistry is wrong, as we have plastics and many other advances of chemistry, we need to then know how homeopathy can explain all these observed effects.

If you know that the car can't run on water, yes. But in that case, the con would be quickly exposed.
No you just tell them that they are not believing in the power of the car enough, or they have to many toxins in their system for the car to work. Those are the perfect woo answers for anything.

No, because it would likely cause harm.

Tell that to all the people who die listening to these idiots and following their advice. They don't want the toxins of modern effective medicine and go to the woos, then they die from easily treatable illnesses.

So do you prevent all products that have not been shown to be valid from being sold?
Ideally yes, things should not be able to be sold as a treatment for something that there is no evidence showing that they are effective.


Homeopathic cough medicine causes "people to die all the time'?
Homeopathy kills, why should cough medicine get treated differently from homeopathic cancer treatments?

[ponderingturtle]

I already have: All OTC cough medicines.

You need to do more, yes there are mixed results if those medicines are effective for that treatment. But proper real cough medicines contain medication that is known to have some effects, unlike your homeopathic cough medicine

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for the information. However, it remains unclear whether any OTC cough medicine is efficacious above placebo.

So what about the OTC cough medicine makes it less effective than the ingredients it has in it? That is a listing of the real medications that OTC cough medicine has.

[ponderingturtle]

Do you have any evidence for this? I remember a thread discussing a now defunct oceanograpic model that predicted that rogue waves would be very much rarer than they now appear to be, but I don't remember any mention of a mathematical proof that they are impossible.

Also that it would invalidate so many well tested predictions that are true.

[Moochie]

Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

[Moochie]

Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

The silence is deafening.

And the above being a mainstay of homeopathic gobbledegook...

M.

[Rodney]

The silence is deafening.

And the above being a mainstay of homeopathic gobbledegook...
M.
The relevant question is not that, but whether homeopathy works, at least in some cases. In my opinion, the jury is still out on that question.

And the silence is also deafening with regard to my question about a non-homeopathic OTC cough medicine that has been shown to be efficacious beyond a placebo.

[ponderingturtle]

The relevant question is not that, but whether homeopathy works, at least in some cases. In my opinion, the jury is still out on that question.

And you have not shown any indication that this is at all true. You know the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well homeopathy is an extraordinary claim, and it has no evidence.


And the silence is also deafening with regard to my question about a non-homeopathic OTC cough medicine that has been shown to be efficacious beyond a placebo.

You already conceded that the ingredients in them are effective. Why do you keep suggesting that they are not? Yes they might not have been as thoroughly studied as might be nice, but the medicines that they use as a basis have effects at the dosages in them. But just because they have been shown to be effective doesn't mean your jury isn't still out.

I am curious, is the jury still out on gravity as well?

[Garrette]

The relevant question is not that, but whether homeopathy works, at least in some cases. In my opinion, the jury is still out on that question. There are opinions, and there are opinions that fly in the face of the evidence.

Yours is the latter.

And the silence is also deafening with regard to my question about a non-homeopathic OTC cough medicine that has been shown to be efficacious beyond a placebo.No it is not.

Some, including me, have said that if an OTC medicine claims what it cannot do it should be removed.

In addition, you continue to ignore the obvious difference between something claiming only to alleviate symptoms and something claiming to affect a cure.

[Moochie]

Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

[Moochie]

Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

P.S. This is the fourth time I am asking.

Conventional meds do not make such asinine claims. Only homeopathy does.

Please answer the question.

[Nucular]

And the silence is also deafening with regard to my question about a non-homeopathic OTC cough medicine that has been shown to be efficacious beyond a placebo.

Rodney, given that people have explained that a) we generally agree that if OTC medicines don't do what they say on the tin they should not be sold, and b) if the ingredients of OTC cough medicines have been shown to be efficacious in clinical trials, then usually that would indicate that cough medicines composed of these ingredients should do exactly the same thing, will you now produce evidence that homeopathic medicines are effective to alleviate coughs and colds, or concede that OTC cough mixtures have a good deal more evidence going for them than the homeopathic medicines for the same thing?

[Rodney]

Rodney, given that people have explained that a) we generally agree that if OTC medicines don't do what they say on the tin they should not be sold, and b) if the ingredients of OTC cough medicines have been shown to be efficacious in clinical trials, then usually that would indicate that cough medicines composed of these ingredients should do exactly the same thing, will you now produce evidence that homeopathic medicines are effective to alleviate coughs and colds, or concede that OTC cough mixtures have a good deal more evidence going for them than the homeopathic medicines for the same thing? Your argument about the ingredients reminds me of something that happened when I was on a camping trip with a group of boys when I was 14 years old. Our counselor made us pancakes for breakfast one morning and then informed us that, while he did not have any pancake syrup, he was going to make his own syrup with sugar and water. He was adamant that "syrup is just sugar and water." I still remember how his blend of sugar and water ruined the pancakes. So, I'm not really interested in hearing the mantra that "cough medicines composed of these ingredients SHOULD do exactly the same thing"; rather I'm interested in the name of a cough medicine that has actually been proven to WORK. And, I feel confident that most folks here who live above the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere also would like to know the name of an OTC cough medicine that works before the winter cold season sets in. Just one name would be fine.

[Zep]

Your argument about the ingredients reminds me of something that happened when I was on a camping trip with a group of boys when I was 14 years old. Our counselor made us pancakes for breakfast one morning and then informed us that, while he did not have any pancake syrup, he was going to make his own syrup with sugar and water. He was adamant that "syrup is just sugar and water." I still remember how his blend of sugar and water ruined the pancakes. So, I'm not really interested in hearing the mantra that "cough medicines composed of these ingredients SHOULD do exactly the same thing"; rather I'm interested in the name of a cough medicine that has actually been proven to WORK. And, I feel confident that most folks here who live above the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere also would like to know the name of an OTC cough medicine that works before the winter cold season sets in. Just one name would be fine.OK, thicko - here's the story, point-by-point:

1) All the OTC cough medicines that are available PERFORM AS INDICATED ON THE PACKET/BOTTLE. If they say they relieve certain symptoms, that's what they will do.

2) If they did not, they would not be allowed to say so on the packet/bottle - it would be illegal in many places. Besides, the consumer advocates everywhere would have them seen to quick smart.

3) I do not believe you will see any OTC medicines that claim to "cure" colds, etc, because THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE FOR! And since that is not what they are for, they cannot claim to do so on the packet/bottle.

Now let us look at homeopathy:

1) Homeopathic remedies DO NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE STRICT RULES GOVERNING OTHER OTC MEDICINES.

2) Therefore they can make whatever crap claims they like on the packet/bottle, regardless of if the claims are supportable or not.

3) Homeopathic remedies are NOT medicines. They are not even potent enough to warrant being governed by OTC medicine rules. They do NOTHING.

4) But they claim to be more potent than "orthodox" medicines, including claims to cure colds, etc.

5) SOMEBODY IS LYING ABOUT THEM! Guess who...

[Nucular]

So, I'm not really interested in hearing the mantra that "cough medicines composed of these ingredients SHOULD do exactly the same thing"; rather I'm interested in the name of a cough medicine that has actually been proven to WORK.

Sidestepping for a moment your impregnable logic (an unfortunate pancake-based experience dictating a New Chemistry) - you are aware, presumably, that different brand names for medications don't affect the chemical composition of their ingredients? If something contains, say, pseudoephedrine (e.g. Sudafed), in the correct dosage, without an accompanying chemical which would render the active ingredient inactive, and is taken via the same route as the clinical studies, there would be no reason to doubt that it will have the desired effect.

True, that effect is probably quite slight, and certainly placebo plays a part (as it does with all medications), but the clinical trials do show that there is indeed an effect for these chemicals, and that therefore - to return to the original point of this discussion - the chemicals I named, and the commercial cough and cold medications which contain them in the correct doses, have been shown to be better than placebo. To my knowledge, the same cannot be said of homeopathic treatments for the same conditions. So, when you said

Also, what makes you think that non-homeopathic cough medicines alleviate symptoms better than homeopathic ones? Can you cite a study?

the studies I provided demonstrate that non-homeopathic cough medicines work, whereas it is clear that no homeopathic remedy of any kind has ever been shown to work, including those intended to treat coughs. You can prove me wrong here by citing a study which shows this to be so. I noted that you requested a study comparing homeopathic and non-homeopathic cough remedies; however, this is not necessary for such a comparison, and I am not aware of any. If there is any evidence that homeopathy can treat coughs and colds, this is where you can cite it.

Or, as I suggested, admit that there is evidence that commercial cough remedies containing the ingredients I mentioned work (to some degree at least), whereas there is no evidence that homeopathic treatments do the same.

Commercial cough remedies might be rubbish, but there is still an effect above placebo, which is not the case for homeopathic treatments, which are, to borrow a phrase, "just sugar and water" ;).

[RemieV]

Rodney, you ignored every single post that would've completely derailed your argument and focused on ones that were non-specific when taken out of context.

The most obvious display of the belief of your mental superiority begins with "If consumers are dumb enough..."

It seems that the problem begins with your belief that fraud isn't a crime. I can only assure you that it is, and that your beliefs are shaped by what you're told just as much as anyone else's.

[Rodney]

Commercial cough remedies might be rubbish, but there is still an effect above placebo.
And the name of the commercial cough remedy that produces an effect above placebo is . . .

[Rodney]

It seems that the problem begins with your belief that fraud isn't a crime. No. Fraud is a crime, but homeopathy isn't, unless the homeopath knows the treatment will not work, but still attempts to profit from it.

[Nucular]

And the name of the commercial cough remedy that produces an effect above placebo is . . .

I'm holding back from just naming one which contains one of the ingredients which have been shown to have a small but significant effect because you're ignoring the point that trade names are immaterial. If you disagree, please explain why; if not, please concede the point.

[wahrheit]

No. Fraud is a crime, but homeopathy isn't, unless the homeopath knows the treatment will not work, but still attempts to profit from it.

Even if it was true what you say above, we have a neat proverb over here which fits quite well:

Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht. Ignorance is no excuse.

[RemieV]

No. Fraud is a crime, but homeopathy isn't, unless the homeopath knows the treatment will not work, but still attempts to profit from it.

Rephrase: I think the problem begins with your belief that quackery is okay. Way to duck the point, by the way.

If you're just going to ignore everything but the part you can jump on, then forget it. It's not even worth the time it takes to type this.

[Rodney]

I'm holding back from just naming one which contains one of the ingredients which have been shown to have a small but significant effect because you're ignoring the point that trade names are immaterial. If you disagree, please explain why; if not, please concede the point. I disagree because consumers purchase a bottle of cough medicine, not a bottle of cough medicine ingredients. To my knowledge, not a single brand (including generic brands) of cough medicine has been proven to be efficacious in a controlled study. If I'm wrong, please cite the study.

[Rodney]

Even if it was true what you say above, we have a neat proverb over here which fits quite well:

Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht. Ignorance is no excuse.
So, in the recent case of spinach contamination in the United States, a grocer who unwittingly sold the spinach was guilty of fraud?

[Rodney]

Rephrase: I think the problem begins with your belief that quackery is okay. What's your definition of quackery?

Way to duck the point, by the way.
I disagree that I was ducking it.

If you're just going to ignore everything but the part you can jump on, then forget it. It's not even worth the time it takes to type this. And yet you just typed it. ;)

[wahrheit]

So, in the recent case of spinach contamination in the United States, a grocer who unwittingly sold the spinach was guilty of fraud?

Rodney, don't try to make me fall for cheap tricks you obviously learned at the discussion school of the stone age.

[Mojo]

So, in the recent case of spinach contamination in the United States, a grocer who unwittingly sold the spinach was guilty of fraud?If the grocer should have known that the spinach was contaminated, he is certainly be guilty of something. He's either fraudulent or grossly negligent. There was a case a few years back over here where a butcher was prosecuted for selling meat products contaminated with E. coli.

But before people became ill, nobody knew that the spinach was contaminated. There was no way the grocer could have known.

On the other hand, it is well known that homoeopathy consistently fails in DBPC trials. That is why you get homoeopaths making excuses, pretending that homoeopathy cannot be tested by DBPC protocols, and running customer satisfaction surveys while pretending that they are proper trials.

[Mojo]

I disagree because consumers purchase a bottle of cough medicine, not a bottle of cough medicine ingredients. To my knowledge, not a single brand (including generic brands) of cough medicine has been proven to be efficacious in a controlled study. If I'm wrong, please cite the study.Can you cite a study in which a single homoeopathic ingredient of a homoeopathic cough medicine has been shown to be effective (never mind the fact that many homoeopaths would say that the "polypharmacy" employed in OTC homoeopathic nostrums would render them ineffective)?

[Nucular]

I disagree because consumers purchase a bottle of cough medicine, not a bottle of cough medicine ingredients. To my knowledge, not a single brand (including generic brands) of cough medicine has been proven to be efficacious in a controlled study. If I'm wrong, please cite the study.

I'm still not following you, could you explain more fully? The brand does not affect the chemical action of the constituents.

[Nucular]

never mind the fact that many homoeopaths would say that the "polypharmacy" employed in OTC homoeopathic nostrums would render them ineffective)

Oh, is that the position that Rodney's busy glossing over?

[Mojo]

And never mind the lack of individualisation. ;)

[Zep]

No, Rodney is busy ducking the point he raised initially.

[ponderingturtle]

Your argument about the ingredients reminds me of something that happened when I was on a camping trip with a group of boys when I was 14 years old. Our counselor made us pancakes for breakfast one morning and then informed us that, while he did not have any pancake syrup, he was going to make his own syrup with sugar and water. He was adamant that "syrup is just sugar and water." I still remember how his blend of sugar and water ruined the pancakes. So, I'm not really interested in hearing the mantra that "cough medicines composed of these ingredients SHOULD do exactly the same thing"; rather I'm interested in the name of a cough medicine that has actually been proven to WORK. And, I feel confident that most folks here who live above the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere also would like to know the name of an OTC cough medicine that works before the winter cold season sets in. Just one name would be fine.

I could make a nice caramel syrup with just sugar and water. Yes he left out ingredients to make what you where thinking of, but what on earth does that matter to how chemical X responds with in the body? They are not leaving out the ingredients that are effective(you know the medications) when cough syrup is made.

What you seem to be trying to ask for is that every formulation of a medicine be fully tested, even if it is identical to one that already has been tested. This is unnecessary and going to be very expensive, do you really want all medicine to cost what non generic prescription drugs cost? Has Walmart brand aspirin ever been shown to do anything in proper scientific tests? Why should it matter that everything in it has been tested that brand has not.

[ponderingturtle]

No. Fraud is a crime, but homeopathy isn't, unless the homeopath knows the treatment will not work, but still attempts to profit from it.

So if I believe that by defecating on your roof will fix it, and you only tell me to fix the roof, you deserve what you get?

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree because consumers purchase a bottle of cough medicine, not a bottle of cough medicine ingredients. To my knowledge, not a single brand (including generic brands) of cough medicine has been proven to be efficacious in a controlled study. If I'm wrong, please cite the study.

And no brand of vegetables has been shown to be part of a balanced diet. How can I know what vegetables to eat if I don't know the brands used in various testing?

[ponderingturtle]

So, in the recent case of spinach contamination in the United States, a grocer who unwittingly sold the spinach was guilty of fraud?

Well, where is the backgrounds of testing that show that spinach is infected with e-coli as a general rule? The principle you are missing here is that generally spinach is safe, homeopathy has never been shown to do anything effective. So anyone who looked and actually knew anything about the backgrounds of spinach and homeopathy would know that that there is no reason for the grocer to think that the spinach as contaminated as that is no the normal state of spinach, and there is no reason for the homeopath to think his formations will do anything as there is no evidence that it does.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm still not following you, could you explain more fully? The brand does not affect the chemical action of the constituents.

No it is just like with water, I knows if it is lowly tap water, or is Aquafina. It does not matter than the one is the other put into bottles.

Never question the validity of brand names ever single atom knows if it is a name brand or a generic brand and acts accordingly.

[fls]

I disagree because consumers purchase a bottle of cough medicine, not a bottle of cough medicine ingredients. To my knowledge, not a single brand (including generic brands) of cough medicine has been proven to be efficacious in a controlled study. If I'm wrong, please cite the study.

The review you keep referring to included these controlled studies showing effectiveness. I do not know if these include OTC preparations, although some are funded by manufacturers, so one could guess that they do. The distinction is irrelevant, anyway.

Adams R, Hosie J, James I, Khong T, Kohn H, Smith I, et al. Antitussive activity and tolerability of moguisteine in patients with acute cough: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther 1993; 10: 263-271

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=9232667&dopt=Abstract

Robinson RE, Cummings WB, Deffenbaugh ER. Effectiveness of guaifenesin as an expectorant: a cooperative double-blind study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1977; 22: 284-296

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=3057962&dopt=Abstract

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/4/1121?ijkey=01b16fcf4bb70b97a752036a4ec8b1edb4cba93 4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

The review stated two were fixed preparations (i.e. "cough medicine"):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=713817&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=344089&dopt=Abstract

Linda

[LordoftheLeftHand]

The relevant question is not that, but whether homeopathy works, at least in some cases. In my opinion, the jury is still out on that question.

Well of course Homeopathy works "in some cases". Doing absolutely nothing works in some cases too (common cold for example). Considering administering a solution diluted to 30C is in fact doing nothing, I would bet both treatments are just as effective.

LLH

[Nucular]

The review you keep referring to included these controlled studies showing effectiveness.

And let us not forget that Rodney has mentioned his only source of information on this, apart from the review I provided, is a WebMD article (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929.htm) which seems a rather dodgy summary of:

a) a conversation with someone who's own lit review seems to replicate the findings of the one I posted

b) a med professor who says actually OTC cough medicines do work, and

c) a 'holistic and integrative medicine specialist' who prefers "magic" cures with zero evidence for efficacy, such as acupuncture for coughs.

Yet, Rodders demands better and better studies from others in reply to his quick web search and cursory glance at a somewhat ropey article.

[fls]

And let us not forget that Rodney has mentioned his only source of information on this, apart from the review I provided, is a WebMD article (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/18/1689_51929.htm) which seems a rather dodgy summary of:

a) a conversation with someone who's own lit review seems to replicate the findings of the one I posted

b) a med professor who says actually OTC cough medicines do work, and

c) a 'holistic and integrative medicine specialist' who prefers "magic" cures with zero evidence for efficacy, such as acupuncture for coughs.

Yet, Rodders demands better and better studies from others in reply to his quick web search and cursory glance at a somewhat ropey article.

<blush>

Rereading your posts, I realize I wasn't following this thread as well as I thought.

I missed that Rodney is arguing that psuedoephedrine performs differently depending upon the graphics on the outside of the bottle.

I have been disappointed in the quality of the material presented by WebMD. That particular (dodgy) summary is typical.

Linda

[Rodney]

I'm still not following you, could you explain more fully? The brand does not affect the chemical action of the constituents.It could not be any simpler: Please provide me with the name of an OTC cough medicine that has been proven to produce an effect above placebo so that I can buy some the next time I develop a cough.

[Mojo]

It could not be any simpler: Please provide me with the name of an OTC cough medicine that has been proven to produce an effect above placebo so that I can buy some the next time I develop a cough.Please provide us with the name of a single homoeopathic component of an OTC homoeopathic cough medicine that has been proven to produce an effect above placebo.

And if you want to back up your argument, please also provide us with a mechanism that would prevent the ingredients of non-homoeopathic cough medicines that have been demonstrated to have an effect above placebo to fail to have this effect as a component of an OTC cough medicine.

Ta.

[fls]

It could not be any simpler: Please provide me with the name of an OTC cough medicine that has been proven to produce an effect above placebo so that I can buy some the next time I develop a cough.

Vicks Medinite
Vicks 44-D
Robitussin DM
Dimetapp DM
Benylin Adult Formula Cough Suppressant
Triaminic Cough
Tylenol Cough and Cold

Linda

[Rodney]

Vicks Medinite
Vicks 44-D
Robitussin DM
Dimetapp DM
Benylin Adult Formula Cough Suppressant
Triaminic Cough
Tylenol Cough and Cold

Linda
So a study or studies has specifically concluded that? Which study(ies)?

[Zep]

(IANAD) I'd say Rodders has some sort of cognitive disorder. Psychologists, please - what is it called when someone is able to operate functionally (read, write, etc) but fails to absorb information that relates directly to their own enquiries?

I'd call it "deliberate trouble-making", myself...

[Chris Haynes]

It could not be any simpler: Please provide me with the name of an OTC cough medicine that has been proven to produce an effect above placebo so that I can buy some the next time I develop a cough.

Okay, read the links provided by fls (Linda) at the top of this page... see what ingredients were the most effective (dextromethorphan, guaifenesin, etc). Then read the labels (especially since store brands are cheaper and have the same active ingredients).

But here is what I do when I have severe cough (as recommended by my family doctor who believes in the cheapest most effective treatments):

Take a couple diphenhydramines (http://scienceblogs.com/moleculeoftheday/2006/11/diphenhydramine_sleepy_but_dry.php)... this is generic Benadryl. Then take a cup of water. Put into it a tablespoon of honey, a tablespoon of lemon juice and a stick of cinnamon. Put it in the microwave and heat it up... let it sit for a moment (or alternatively you can put the honey, lemon juice and cinnamon stick in the cup and put hot water over them).

Sip the the hot soothing liquid slowly... The diphenhydramine will make you very sleepy (and according to my doctor, cause the muscles in your throat to relax). Then go to bed.

You may have to repeat in four hours.

During the day, make sure you have hot soothing liquids to sip. This could include tea, the non-alcoholic toddy described above, hot lemonade, plain hot water with lemon juice, chicken soup or (one of my favorites) Hot and Sour Soup from our local Chinese restaurant. You could, of course, heat up your favorite homeopathic remedy... but frankly I do not care much for drinking plain hot water.

If your cough persists more than two weeks and/or you are coughing up thick yellow ropes of mucus streaked with blood plus you have severe pain in your chest go see a real doctor. When the latter happened to me (had a sudden high fever in the evening, woke up with no fever but the worst cough you could imagine) I had bacterial pneumonia. I missed about six weeks of 8th grade (on the way home from the medical center my mother stopped by the school and picked up my books and assignments, I homeschooled myself for over Spring break, and was caught up when I got back to school after Easter).

[fls]

So a study or studies has specifically concluded that? Which study(ies)?

I provided references in my post at the top of this page.

Linda

[Rodney]

I provided references in my post at the top of this page.

Linda

Where in these references are any of the below cough medicines that you listed mentioned?

Vicks Medinite
Vicks 44-D
Robitussin DM
Dimetapp DM
Benylin Adult Formula Cough Suppressant
Triaminic Cough
Tylenol Cough and Cold

[Rodney]

Okay, read the links provided by fls (Linda) at the top of this page... see what ingredients were the most effective (dextromethorphan, guaifenesin, etc). Then read the labels (especially since store brands are cheaper and have the same active ingredients).

But here is what I do when I have severe cough (as recommended by my family doctor who believes in the cheapest most effective treatments):

Take a couple diphenhydramines (http://scienceblogs.com/moleculeoftheday/2006/11/diphenhydramine_sleepy_but_dry.php)... this is generic Benadryl. Then take a cup of water. Put into it a tablespoon of honey, a tablespoon of lemon juice and a stick of cinnamon. Put it in the microwave and heat it up... let it sit for a moment (or alternatively you can put the honey, lemon juice and cinnamon stick in the cup and put hot water over them).

Sip the the hot soothing liquid slowly... The diphenhydramine will make you very sleepy (and according to my doctor, cause the muscles in your throat to relax). Then go to bed.

You may have to repeat in four hours.

During the day, make sure you have hot soothing liquids to sip. This could include tea, the non-alcoholic toddy described above, hot lemonade, plain hot water with lemon juice, chicken soup or (one of my favorites) Hot and Sour Soup from our local Chinese restaurant. You could, of course, heat up your favorite homeopathic remedy... but frankly I do not care much for drinking plain hot water.

If your cough persists more than two weeks and/or you are coughing up thick yellow ropes of mucus streaked with blood plus you have severe pain in your chest go see a real doctor. When the latter happened to me (had a sudden high fever in the evening, woke up with no fever but the worst cough you could imagine) I had bacterial pneumonia. I missed about six weeks of 8th grade (on the way home from the medical center my mother stopped by the school and picked up my books and assignments, I homeschooled myself for over Spring break, and was caught up when I got back to school after Easter).
Thanks for the tip. The point I'm making, however, is that it's not enough to assume that ingredients that have been shown to be marginally effective in treating a cough will combine to produce an efficacious cough medicine. The only way to demonstrate whether a cough medicine is efficacious is to do a controlled test of it versus a placebo.

[ponderingturtle]

It could not be any simpler: Please provide me with the name of an OTC cough medicine that has been proven to produce an effect above placebo so that I can buy some the next time I develop a cough.

The brand does not matter, read the active ingredients. They are what counts. When you put the same thing into a different bottle or pill it does not act differently.

[ponderingturtle]

(IANAD) I'd say Rodders has some sort of cognitive disorder. Psychologists, please - what is it called when someone is able to operate functionally (read, write, etc) but fails to absorb information that relates directly to their own enquiries?

I'd call it "deliberate trouble-making", myself...

The normal name for such behavior is trolling.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for the tip. The point I'm making, however, is that it's not enough to assume that ingredients that have been shown to be marginally effective in treating a cough will combine to produce an efficacious cough medicine. The only way to demonstrate whether a cough medicine is efficacious is to do a controlled test of it versus a placebo.

And the point you are missing is that say pseudo-ephedrine is pseudo-ephedrine, and how ever many mg of it is that many mg of it. It does not matter who's name is on the label.

[fls]

Thanks for the tip. The point I'm making, however, is that it's not enough to assume that ingredients that have been shown to be marginally effective in treating a cough will combine to produce an efficacious cough medicine. The only way to demonstrate whether a cough medicine is efficacious is to do a controlled test of it versus a placebo.

The studies (RCT's) that I referenced tested single and multiple-component cough medicines. The brand name preparations that I listed were either the specific brand name preparation used in the study, or were the same as the formulation used in the study.

Linda

[Rodney]

The studies (RCT's) that I referenced tested single and multiple-component cough medicines. The brand name preparations that I listed were either the specific brand name preparation used in the study, or were the same as the formulation used in the study.

Linda

So you're saying that Vicks Medinite, Vicks 44-D, Robitussin DM, Dimetapp DM,
Benylin Adult Formula Cough Suppressant, Triaminic Cough, and Tylenol Cough and Cold were specifically tested in these studies? Where are these brand names mentioned in the studies?

[ponderingturtle]

So you're saying that Vicks Medinite, Vicks 44-D, Robitussin DM, Dimetapp DM,
Benylin Adult Formula Cough Suppressant, Triaminic Cough, and Tylenol Cough and Cold were specifically tested in these studies? Where are these brand names mentioned in the studies?

I would like to hear your rational for why the brand name matters.

[Rodney]

I would like to hear your rational for why the brand name matters.Because the product tested must be identical to what is available to consumers.

[Mojo]

I would like to hear your rational for why the brand name matters.Perhaps the name applied to a formulation can somehow change its properties? :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

Because the product tested must be identical to what is available to consumers.

Why? The ammount of sugar or dye or what ever binders and such they use, how is that supposted to change the effect?

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps the name applied to a formulation can somehow change its properties? :rolleyes:

Also remember that changing a binding agent or coloring agent would mean complete retesting of the whole thing if he had his way

[wahrheit]

Perhaps the name applied to a formulation can somehow change its properties? :rolleyes:
Sure, just like water crystals look different under the microscope depending on how you labeled the bottle two weaks earlier ;)

[Mojo]

Because the product tested must be identical to what is available to consumers.Presumably that would be covered by "either the specific brand name preparation used in the study, or were the same as the formulation used in the study". Unless you are contending that the name somehow changes the properties.

[Nucular]

Rodney, I can't see this already rather fruitless discussion getting any further unless you give a detailed rationale for your objections to the existing research being transferable to identical preparations sold commercially.

So far, the only thing you've produced is a WebMD article which is painfully substandard. Do you have anything else, or shall we just stop?

[fls]

So you're saying that Vicks Medinite, Vicks 44-D, Robitussin DM, Dimetapp DM,
Benylin Adult Formula Cough Suppressant, Triaminic Cough, and Tylenol Cough and Cold were specifically tested in these studies? Where are these brand names mentioned in the studies?

The brand names are specified in the original research articles. The Vicks preparations were specifically tested. The other preparations have the same ingredients (i.e. the same combination) as the preparations tested in the studies (the Tylenol product should be Tylenol Flu Night Time), but the brand name isn't always specified.

Linda

[Chris Haynes]

Thanks for the tip. The point I'm making, however, is that it's not enough to assume that ingredients that have been shown to be marginally effective in treating a cough will combine to produce an efficacious cough medicine. The only way to demonstrate whether a cough medicine is efficacious is to do a controlled test of it versus a placebo.

Seeing as you are avoiding reading the links that fls (Linda) posted on the top of this page, I can just assume you are being purposely obtuse.

But I will just add one thing: Learn what the ingredients are by their actual names (ibuprofen (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682159.html), pseudoephedrine (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682619.html), diphenydramine (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682539.html), etc), and find out what they do (just click the hyperlinks to go to the page that was obtained by using www.medlineplus.gov (http://www.medlineplus.gov/) ). Then go to the store and READ THE LABELS!!! You will find that they are used sometimes singly or combined with others in a variety of brand name and store brand over the counter medications. You will also see that the actual amount of med per dose is on the label (eg: 100 mg guaifenensen (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202270.html) and 10 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202187.html)). You will notice this information is missing from any homeopathic remedy.

[Moochie]

Since you're still here, Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

P.S. This is the fifth time I am asking.

Conventional meds do not make such asinine claims. Only homeopathy does.

Please answer the question.

[Rodney]

The brand names are specified in the original research articles. The Vicks preparations were specifically tested. The other preparations have the same ingredients (i.e. the same combination) as the preparations tested in the studies (the Tylenol product should be Tylenol Flu Night Time), but the brand name isn't always specified.
Linda Okay, although I would still like to know exactly where Vicks Medinite and Vicks 44-D are mentioned in the research articles and what the specific findings of the research were. For example, was the conclusion that "Vicks Medinite, Vicks 44-D, and similarly-formulated over-the-counter cough medicines have been proven to relieve coughs beyond any placebo effect"? I would think that, if that was the finding, the manufacturer of Vicks would advertise that fact. To my knowledge, it doesn't. And here is another link that questions the efficacy of OTC cough medicines -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10777506/

Excerpt: "Despite the billions of dollars spent every year in this country on over-the-counter cough syrups, most such medicines do little if anything to relieve coughs, the nation’s chest physicians say.

"Over-the-counter cough syrups generally contain drugs in too low a dose to be effective, or contain combinations of drugs that have never been proven to treat coughs, said Dr. Richard Irwin, chairman of a cough guidelines committee for the American College of Chest Physicians."

[Rodney]

Since you're still here, Rodney, explain for us, if you will, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

M.

P.S. This is the fifth time I am asking.

Conventional meds do not make such asinine claims. Only homeopathy does.

Please answer the question. I don't know if water has a memory, but that question is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is whether OTC homeopathic cough medicines are less efficacious than OTC non-homeopathic cough medicines.

[John Jackson]

I had some bleach under the sink and was worried about the kids being harmed by ingesting such a hazardous chemical concoction.

To protect them, I’ve changed the label to strawberry jam.

“Rodney Logic”: you know it makes sense. :D

[John Jackson]

The issue is whether OTC homeopathic cough medicines are less efficacious than OTC non-homeopathic cough medicines.

No. That's a complete non-issue.

[Moochie]

I don't know if water has a memory, but that question is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is whether OTC homeopathic cough medicines are less efficacious than OTC non-homeopathic cough medicines.

I wrote the OP. If you want to derail, start your own thread. You're asking questions that have been answered here and elsewhere heaps of times. It's about time you answered a question:

Explain for us, if you can, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

The question is germane because the homeopathic principle of water having a "memory" is one of the most obvious quack notions in homeopathy -- a debunked quackery which you have chosen to defend.

M.

[fls]

Okay, although I would still like to know exactly where Vicks Medinite and Vicks 44-D are mentioned in the research articles

Have you read the research articles?

and what the specific findings of the research were.

I told you in my first post that these were controlled trials showing effectiveness. That means "proven to relieve coughs beyond any placebo effect".

For example, was the conclusion that "Vicks Medinite, Vicks 44-D, and similarly-formulated over-the-counter cough medicines have been proven to relieve coughs beyond any placebo effect"?

Yes. See above.

I would think that, if that was the finding, the manufacturer of Vicks would advertise that fact. To my knowledge, it doesn't.

Pretty much every commercial I've seen for Vicks advertises that it is effective.

And here is another link that questions the efficacy of OTC cough medicines -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10777506/

Reporters do not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate medical research. I do. Reporters also rarely transmit what is told to them by experts accurately. I undertook an informal study of this issue, once. I found that all of the articles that I evaluated contained errors. Half of them contained major errors, and in one-third of those, the errors were so egregious that the research actually said the opposite of what was reported.

I don't know if your ignorance is feigned or real, but it is interesting to see how long you can drag this out.

Linda

[Chris Haynes]

More stuff:
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001831/frame.html

It covers 24 studies... Where is the equivalent for homeopathic cough remedies?

Oh... and ...
...It's about time you answered a question:

Explain for us, if you can, the homeopathic principle of how water has a "memory."

The question is germane because the homeopathic principle of water having a "memory" is one of the most obvious quack notions in homeopathy -- a debunked quackery which you have chosen to defend.

M.

[Rodney]

Have you read the research articles?
I've read the abstracts that you have supplied, but have not been able to access the articles on-line. How about if you supply a page cite to where Vicks Medinite and Vicks 44-D are mentioned in the research articles?

I told you in my first post that these were controlled trials showing effectiveness. That means "proven to relieve coughs beyond any placebo effect".
Effectiveness of specific products, including Vicks Medinite and Vicks 44-D, or just the effectiveness of one or more of the ingredients found in those two products?

Pretty much every commercial I've seen for Vicks advertises that it is effective. Sure, but that's far different than stating on the label: "Proven effective in clinical trials. For further information, see ______________"

Reporters do not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate medical research. I do. And your profession is . . .

I don't know if your ignorance is feigned or real, but it is interesting to see how long you can drag this out. Linda
Oh, it's real. ;)

[luchog]

Oh, it's real. ;)

And greatly exaggerated to the point of deliberate obtuseness. No one can be that dense and still be able to tie their own shoes without help.

The problem is your magical thinking. The names of the products are meaningless. Read the studies and read the ingredients levels. That's all that matter -- specific ingredients and specific quantities of those ingredients. They don't change simply because you use more blue dye in one brand and more yellow die in another. And it doesn't matter how many times you shake the bottle.

[fls]

I've read the abstracts that you have supplied, but have not been able to access the articles on-line. How about if you supply a page cite to where Vicks Medinite and Vicks 44-D are mentioned in the research articles?

The BMJ review mentions the Vicks Medinite about half-way down the page.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7333/329

I could not find generally accessible sites for the other studies.

Effectiveness of specific products, including Vicks Medinite and Vicks 44-D, or just the effectiveness of one or more of the ingredients found in those two products?

I've already said this several times - not just for the individual ingredients, for the combination of ingredients. The same combination as found in the brand name products or the actual brand name product.

Sure, but that's far different than stating on the label: "Proven effective in clinical trials. For further information, see ______________"

No it's not. If a medication makes claims of effectiveness, that means that data was presented to the FDA that backed up those claims - i.e. "proven effective in clinical trials".


And your profession is . . .

I am a physician specializing in Internal Medicine with a Masters degree in Public Health and 10 years (so far) experience in an academic position at a university hospital.

Originally Posted by fls
I don't know if your ignorance is feigned or real, but it is interesting to see how long you can drag this out.

Oh, it's real. ;)

:)

Linda

[Rodney]

The BMJ review mentions the Vicks Medinite about half-way down the page.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7333/329

I could not find generally accessible sites for the other studies. Okay, thanks, (Dr.) Linda. I have found this sentence in the BMJ article: "In a crossover trial of Vicks Medinite syrup, 58% of participants rated active treatment good or better in relieving cough symptoms compared with 32% for placebo." However, is Vicks Medinite an over-the-counter medicine? I never recall seeing it on any shelves in U.S. drugstores. Also, I note that the BMJ article concludes:

"It remains unclear whether over the counter cough preparations are helpful in acute cough. We therefore cannot yet recommend these medicines as first line treatment for cough associated with upper respiratory tract infection. The NHS encourages self treatment for acute self limiting illnesses, and the use of over the counter cough preparations as a home remedy. Although these medicines are generally well tolerated, their purchase could lead to unnecessary expense for the healthcare consumer. The advice to use over the counter cough medicines should therefore be restricted until more evidence becomes available on their effectiveness."

[Garrette]

However, is Vicks Medinite an over-the-counter medicine? I never recall seeing it on any shelves in U.S. drugstores.I don't know if it's in the U.S., but yes, it is OTC in the UK (http://www.expresschemist.co.uk/product_2294_vicks-medinite-180ml.html). And it is manufactured by Proctor and Gamble.


Also, I note that the BMJ article concludes:

"It remains unclear whether over the counter cough preparations are helpful in acute cough. We therefore cannot yet recommend these medicines as first line treatment for cough associated with upper respiratory tract infection. The NHS encourages self treatment for acute self limiting illnesses, and the use of over the counter cough preparations as a home remedy. In other words, don't use the medicine for what it is not designed for. Instead, use it only for what it is designed for (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100002753.html).


Although these medicines are generally well tolerated, their purchase could lead to unnecessary expense for the healthcare consumer.Isn't it refreshing that the evil big-pharma conspiracy would publicize cautions about its own products so that consumers don't waste their money or risk their health?

Tell me where the same concern is demonstrated in the big-homeo industry.


The advice to use over the counter cough medicines should therefore be restricted until more evidence becomes available on their effectiveness."Ditto above.

Do you think "restricted" means "prohibited?" Or does it more probably mean "dispensed judiciously?"


I have to commend you, Rodney. You've done an admirable job of turning this thread from a discussion of bs homeopathic remedies to a labeling issue about cough medicines. Even when people agree with some of your points, you keep the discussion away from homeopathy.

Why do you feel the need to avoid discussing homeopathic remedies?

Don't tell me. I think I know.

[fls]

Okay, thanks, (Dr.) Linda. I have found this sentence in the BMJ article: "In a crossover trial of Vicks Medinite syrup, 58% of participants rated active treatment good or better in relieving cough symptoms compared with 32% for placebo." However, is Vicks Medinite an over-the-counter medicine? I never recall seeing it on any shelves in U.S. drugstores.

I didn't know where you were from. It appears to be a preparation available in the UK. The equivalent in the US would be Vicks 44 Cold (or Tylenol Flu Night Time). (Both OTC)

Also, I note that the BMJ article concludes:

"It remains unclear whether over the counter cough preparations are helpful in acute cough. We therefore cannot yet recommend these medicines as first line treatment for cough associated with upper respiratory tract infection. The NHS encourages self treatment for acute self limiting illnesses, and the use of over the counter cough preparations as a home remedy. Although these medicines are generally well tolerated, their purchase could lead to unnecessary expense for the healthcare consumer. The advice to use over the counter cough medicines should therefore be restricted until more evidence becomes available on their effectiveness."

The only people that really care about the conclusion section of a research article are the authors. It is the point at which the authors try to justify their own biases. In this case, there are several equally valid conclusions that could be reached, depending upon your own inclinations.

Linda

[Rodney]

I don't know if it's in the U.S., but yes, it is OTC in the UK (http://www.expresschemist.co.uk/product_2294_vicks-medinite-180ml.html). And it is manufactured by Proctor and Gamble.
However, when I clicked the link, I received this message:

"The product you have selected (Vicks Medinite 180ml) is a Pharmacy Medicine, the supply of which is controlled by strict government regulations. For your safety, these regulations require that you complete the short form below, so we can ensure that the medicine is suitable for you. Our Pharmacist will view the information you enter before your medicine is dispensed. By law, all online pharmacies must follow this procedure."

So, Vicks Medinite in the UK does not appear comparable to OTC cough medicines in the United States.

Isn't it refreshing that the evil big-pharma conspiracy would publicize cautions about its own products so that consumers don't waste their money or risk their health? I never said big drug companies are evil, but I'm not sure they want rigorous testing of their OTC cough medicines.

I have to commend you, Rodney. You've done an admirable job of turning this thread from a discussion of bs homeopathic remedies to a labeling issue about cough medicines. My points are: (a) The "homeopathic" cough medicine cited by Moochie in the opening post has, in all probability, never been tested, and so we can't assume it is not efficacious. In fact, we can't even assume it's homeopathic. However, anything labeled as homeopathic incurs the wrath of most folks here. (b) When I first posted on this thread, I was not aware that any OTC cough medicine had been proven efficacious above placebo. Thanks to Linda, it appears that I was wrong, but the evidence regarding the efficacy of OTC cough medicines still appears tenuous.

Even when people agree with some of your points, you keep the discussion away from homeopathy.

Why do you feel the need to avoid discussing homeopathic remedies?

Don't tell me. I think I know. As far as I know, I've never used a homeopathic product, but I don't agree with the consensus here that homeopathy has been completely discredited.

[Rodney]

I didn't know where you were from. It appears to be a preparation available in the UK. The equivalent in the US would be Vicks 44 Cold (or Tylenol Flu Night Time). (Both OTC) Okay, thanks.

The only people that really care about the conclusion section of a research article are the authors. It is the point at which the authors try to justify their own biases. In this case, there are several equally valid conclusions that could be reached, depending upon your own inclinations.
Linda
So what's your overall evaluation of OTC cough medicines? When do you recommend taking them and when do you recommend avoiding them? Any favorites?

[Zep]

...but I don't agree with the consensus here that homeopathy has been completely discredited.Oh, I know of a major killer that any ultra-molar homeopathic preparation WILL assist with - proven too. Diarrhea. The only thing you need to ensure it works is to administer an hourly dosage: one drop diluted in 400ml of clean water each time. The same remedy also helps with dehydration.

;)

[RemieV]

Rodney, do you know what homeopathy is?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/

I like this part:

"Various explanations have been proposed as to how homeopathy might work. However, none of these explanations has been scientifically verified."

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Rodney are you trying to say that cough medicine is not effective at suppressing coughing, or that it is not effective at curing a cough?

LLH

[Chris Haynes]

...As far as I know, I've never used a homeopathic product, but I don't agree with the consensus here that homeopathy has been completely discredited.

So tell us which particular type of homeopath cough medicine does work. Give us the brand, list of ingredients and the study that showed it to work on coughs.

[ponderingturtle]

As far as I know, I've never used a homeopathic product, but I don't agree with the consensus here that homeopathy has been completely discredited.

Then you will need to provide some explanation on how it can possibly work with out making everything we know about chemistry and biology invalid.

How about this, next time you are feeling down, start administering electric shocks to yourself to recharge your immune system. The jury is still out on that, it has not been conclusively shown not to work.

And if you don't feel it is discredited please answer the question about water memory. That is an important part toward providing a mechanism for how it could possibly work.

[Mojo]

But for now, Rodney, just provide the name of a brand of homoeopathic cough medicine that has been shown to work, along with references to the studies that have demonstrated this.

[Garrette]

However, when I clicked the link, I received this message:

"The product you have selected (Vicks Medinite 180ml) is a Pharmacy Medicine, the supply of which is controlled by strict government regulations. For your safety, these regulations require that you complete the short form below, so we can ensure that the medicine is suitable for you. Our Pharmacist will view the information you enter before your medicine is dispensed. By law, all online pharmacies must follow this procedure."

So, Vicks Medinite in the UK does not appear comparable to OTC cough medicines in the United States.

Let's be complete about this, Rodney. Here are the questions the pharmacist must ask:

Age of person who this medicine is for

Gender

Has the person used this medicine before?

If taken before, were there any side-effects?

Please describe the condition that the medicine will be used for, including how it was diagnosed (or what the symptoms are) and the severity of the condition. Government regulations require that this question is answered fully so that our pharmacist can ensure that the medication is appropriate.

Please provide details of any other medicines currently being taken, either prescribed or purchasedAny existing medical conditions?
(e.g. heart problems, diabetes, asthma, pregnancy, breast feeding)


Now I agree this is a step beyond US OTC, but only insofar as you have to tell the pharmacist the answer to the same questions that here in the US we answer for ourselves.

There is no medical diagnosis. It's simply a warning label with a person attached.

I never said big drug companies are evil, but I'm not sure they want rigorous testing of their OTC cough medicines.Perhaps not, but you've not demonstrated that here.

My points are: (a) The "homeopathic" cough medicine cited by Moochie in the opening post has, in all probability, never been tested, and so we can't assume it is not efficacious.It's more than that. We can assume it's not because no homeopathic medicine has ever been shown efficacious at all.

And you're still not acknowledging the difference between these medicines. The OTC stuff only claims to alleviate symptoms. The homeopathic stuff claims to cure illness.

In fact, we can't even assume it's homeopathic.True. Which is another strike against homeopathy. The industry is so unregulated that anyone can slap a homeopathic label on any product. It is set up specifically to take advantage of the public's ignorance about homeopathy whereas conventional medicine is set up to get people informed.

However, anything labeled as homeopathic incurs the wrath of most folks here.Quite rightly.

(b) When I first posted on this thread, I was not aware that any OTC cough medicine had been proven efficacious above placebo. Thanks to Linda, it appears that I was wrong,Very good of you to acknowledge this. (I mean that sincerely)

but the evidence regarding the efficacy of OTC cough medicines still appears tenuous. I'm not sure I agree with you, particularly since you still seem to be trying to erroneously conflate a claim about alleviating symptoms with a claim about affecting a cure.

But I'll leave this part to Linda and others.

As far as I know, I've never used a homeopathic product, Wise of you.

ut I don't agree with the consensus here that homeopathy has been completely discredited.What would convince you it has been?

[Rodney]

What would convince you it has been?
The studies showing benefits from homeopathy would have to be refuted. As the Wikipedia article notes: "Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

[wahrheit]

Don't you think you should provide a little more than a link to wikipedia's entry on homeopathy that mentions a 15 year old meta-analysis? Reposting it doesn't help much, either.

[Psiload]

The studies showing benefits from homeopathy would have to be refuted. As the Wikipedia article notes: "Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy I've never uderstood why homeopathic researchers design their experiments to detect efficacy rather than mere existence. Proving the existence of a homeopathic effect of any sort would seem to be a much simpler undertaking, with a much more definitive outcome, than attempting to apply homeopathy to a specific goal or task.

Actually... I understand perfectly well why homeopaths avoid simplicity at all costs.

[Rodney]

Don't you think you should provide a little more than a link to wikipedia's entry on homeopathy that mentions a 15 year old meta-analysis? Reposting it doesn't help much, either.
Have the 11 (of the best 15) studies that showed homeopathy to be efficacious been refuted? If so, please supply a link.

[Garrette]

Have the 11 (of the best 15) studies that showed homeopathy to be efficacious been refuted? If so, please supply a link.
2005 Lancet Study of 110 homeopathic trials and 110 conventional medicine trials
The prediction was supported by the study - whereas the conventional tests showed a real effect independent of sample size, the homeopathy studies did not. The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective or that all its findings are placebo effects, but does show that the totality of tests analysed show outcomes consistent with the interpretation that all of the reported effects are placebo effects.

Second, here is the context of your bit about the 11 high quality studies:
1991 British Medical Journal study of 107 controlled homeopathy trialsDespite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy.

The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."[Italics mine to highlight what appears to be a contradiction to me. 15 trials showed homeopathy is effective, but only 11 of those 15 showed efficacy. The other 4 were effective but not efficacious?
---

So then. Best case for homeopathy: The larger study shows no effect beyond placebo.

Of the smaller study, there are, at most, 11 trials which indicate further evaluation might be desirable.

Even with your own source, we’re back to: Homeopathy is not demonstrated as efficacious.

[ponderingturtle]

The studies showing benefits from homeopathy would have to be refuted. As the Wikipedia article notes: "Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Could you please find something that has more than a random cite on wikipedia to support your side.

Note that they refer to the 22 best studies, that does not actualy mean that any of those used procedure that was properly blinded and such to get a real measurement.

[Rodney]

15 trials showed homeopathy is effective, but only 11 of those 15 showed efficacy. The other 4 were effective but not efficacious?
I think what the Wikipedia article is saying is that, of 22 high-caliber studies, 15 showed homeopathy to be efficacious. Narrowing down those 22 studies to the 15 best, 11 showed homeopathy to be efficacious.

So then. Best case for homeopathy: The larger study shows no effect beyond placebo.
No. The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."

Of the smaller study, there are, at most, 11 trials which indicate further evaluation might be desirable.
Again, my interpretation of the Wikipedia article is that 11 of the 15 best studies showed homeopathy to be efficacious.

Even with your own source, we’re back to: Homeopathy is not demonstrated as efficacious.
Overall, I agree that the jury is still out. But that's a long way from saying that homeopathy has been demonstrated to be ineffective or is quackery.

[ponderingturtle]

Overall, I agree that the jury is still out. But that's a long way from saying that homeopathy has been demonstrated to be ineffective or is quackery.


Just like all those people with their propetual motion machines, the jury is still out on that too.

[Garrette]

I think what the Wikipedia article is saying is that, of 22 high-caliber studies, 15 showed homeopathy to be efficacious. Narrowing down those 22 studies to the 15 best, 11 showed homeopathy to be efficacious.Okay, I can buy that. So of 107 studies, 11 show efficacy but have not been replicated. Therefore, the meta-analysis shows: No efficacy.

No. The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."This is from the British Journal study, not the Lancet study I was referring to, which is larger than the BJ and showed no effect at all beyond placebo.


Again, my interpretation of the Wikipedia article is that 11 of the 15 best studies showed homeopathy to be efficacious. Okay. Again, that leaves 11 of 107 trials show efficacy, but none have been replicated.


Overall, I agree that the jury is still out. But that's a long way from saying that homeopathy has been demonstrated to be ineffective or is quackery.That's like saying the jury is still out on Fox sister style spiritualism because while nearly all practicioners have been shown to be fraudulent, there remain a couple not positively refuted. And please ignore the fact they haven't replicated anything either.

[Rodney]

That's like saying the jury is still out on Fox sister style spiritualism because while nearly all practicioners have been shown to be fraudulent, there remain a couple not positively refuted. And please ignore the fact they haven't replicated anything either. "A couple not positively refuted"? Must homeopathy study conclusions are along the lines of this, as cited in the Wikipedia article:

"In January 2006 the European Journal of Cancer published a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio- and chemo-therapy. Three of the trials included were randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors were from the Department of Complementary Medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. Their analysis found insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic remedies in cancer treatment recovery. They wrote that 'In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy.'"

[Garrette]

"A couple not positively refuted"? Must homeopathy study conclusions are along the lines of this, as cited in the Wikipedia article:

"In January 2006 the European Journal of Cancer published a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio- and chemo-therapy. Three of the trials included were randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors were from the Department of Complementary Medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. Their analysis found insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic remedies in cancer treatment recovery. They wrote that 'In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy.'"I stand by what I said.

The bolding is mine. It says the studies found nothing.

The italics are also mine. It says that the authors think more research is indicated. They say this despite none of the studies demonstrating anything. As someone else has said recently on this board (maybe it's in this thread) the Conclusion section of the paper is where the authors try to justify their biases.

I'll paraphrase what the authors are saying:

Our review showed that no rigorous studies of homeopathic remedies demonstrate efficacy. However, as our careers are tied to the promotion of complementary medicine we will make the standard call for more research (and more funding) even though all the research is negative and the studies never get better.

[Moochie]

... Overall, I agree that the jury is still out. But that's a long way from saying that homeopathy has been demonstrated to be ineffective or is quackery.

Then demonstrate how it's not quackery. What else do you call the homeopathic principle that water has a "memory," suggesting that a homeopathic concoction can be efficacious although any active ingredient has been diluted out of it? The water "remembers" the active ingredient, therefore the homeopathic preparation works?

This is not quackery?

M.

[Rodney]

I stand by what I said.

The bolding is mine. It says the studies found nothing.

The italics are also mine. It says that the authors think more research is indicated. They say this despite none of the studies demonstrating anything. As someone else has said recently on this board (maybe it's in this thread) the Conclusion section of the paper is where the authors try to justify their biases.

I'll paraphrase what the authors are saying:

Our review showed that no rigorous studies of homeopathic remedies demonstrate efficacy. However, as our careers are tied to the promotion of complementary medicine we will make the standard call for more research (and more funding) even though all the research is negative and the studies never get better.
So, when the authors say that "the evidence . . . is encouraging", they're being disingenuous? And do you believe that medical doctors who practice complementary medicine are less-qualified than other MDs?

[Garrette]

So, when the authors say that "the evidence . . . is encouraging", they're being disingenuous?When, in the same paper in which they say:

Their analysis found insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic remedies in cancer treatment recovery

they also say:

the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing

then, yes, I think they are being disingenuous. But that wasn't my point.

My point was that when you quote the latter statement while ignoring the first you are being disingenous.

And do you believe that medical doctors who practice complementary medicine are less-qualified than other MDs?Practicioner qualifications and legitimacy of practice are two separate things.

I have no idea what the credentials (qualifications) of the two doctors are. They may be Nobel Prize winners for all I know.

But when, regardless of their qualifications, they continue to practice what has never been demonstrated to work, then I call their integrity into question. They may well believe their own flapdoodle, but they should know better.

[Rodney]

Then demonstrate how it's not quackery. What else do you call the homeopathic principle that water has a "memory," suggesting that a homeopathic concoction can be efficacious although any active ingredient has been diluted out of it? The water "remembers" the active ingredient, therefore the homeopathic preparation works?

This is not quackery?

M.

What do you say about the proposition that a person who drinks a placebo, such as sugared water, can recover from an illness faster than someone who drinks that same sugared water, but who is told that it is sugared water? Is that quackery? If you say no, please explain how the placebo effect works.

[Garrette]

What do you say about the proposition that a person who drinks a placebo, such as sugared water, can recover from an illness faster than someone who drinks that same sugared water, but who is told that it is sugared water? Is that quackery? If you say no, please explain how the placebo effect works.That it has nothing to do with water having a memory and that you are still conflating claims for alleviation of symptom with claims for curing of illness.

And that we have readily admitted homeopathic remedies may have a placebo effect.

[Moochie]

What do you say about the proposition that a person who drinks a placebo, such as sugared water, can recover from an illness faster than someone who drinks that same sugared water, but who is told that it is sugared water? Is that quackery? If you say no, please explain how the placebo effect works.

Here's what I wrote:

Then demonstrate how it's not quackery. What else do you call the homeopathic principle that water has a "memory," suggesting that a homeopathic concoction can be efficacious although any active ingredient has been diluted out of it? The water "remembers" the active ingredient, therefore the homeopathic preparation works?

This is not quackery?

M.

[ponderingturtle]

What do you say about the proposition that a person who drinks a placebo, such as sugared water, can recover from an illness faster than someone who drinks that same sugared water, but who is told that it is sugared water? Is that quackery? If you say no, please explain how the placebo effect works.

Because the power of suggestion can influence perceptions. For example a study showed that depending on how you ask a question will influence the answer of how something is viewed link (http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/ResearchProcess/ConsiderationsInWording.htm).

So with that, you can not really say that they are getting better sooner, just that they are reporting that they are getting better faster. There was a big thread not to long ago debating if there is really a placebo effect or if it is just an expression of the bias of the people taking the thing and the examiners being biased as well. link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63574)

So saying it does the same as the placebo is saying that it does nothing. It not some magical effect like the law of similars and the law of contagion that homeopathy operates under.

[ponderingturtle]

Here's what I wrote:

Then demonstrate how it's not quackery. What else do you call the homeopathic principle that water has a "memory," suggesting that a homeopathic concoction can be efficacious although any active ingredient has been diluted out of it? The water "remembers" the active ingredient, therefore the homeopathic preparation works?

This is not quackery?


Magic. It is clearly the law of contagion at work.

[Garrette]

Magic. It is clearly the law of contagion at work.Homeopathy's contagious? I feel sick...

[Rodney]

This is not quackery?
M.

Not if it works (which, in my opinion, is still an open question). My point about the placebo effect is that, to my knowledge, there is no good explanation of how it works either.

[ponderingturtle]

Not if it works (which, in my opinion, is still an open question). My point about the placebo effect is that, to my knowledge, there is no good explanation of how it works either.

Read more. Placebo effect is always strongest in things that can only be subjectively measured and not objectively measured. It is easy to convince people that you did something to help them, look into quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org) and it explains how people can attribute something that did active harm to them as helping

[Garrette]

Not if it works (which, in my opinion, is still an open question). My point about the placebo effect is that, to my knowledge, there is no good explanation of how it works either.For the lurkers out there, let's summarize Rodney's position through this whole thread:

Homeopathy might work even though it has never been shown to work. I know this because some cough medicines don't cure respiratory infections and because the placebo effect exists.

I'm being blunt, Rodney, and I recognize you may not actually think that's what you're saying. But if you'll look at your posts objectively, you will find that it is exactly what you're saying.

And also (for Rodney and for lurkers) read the stuff posted by ponderingturtle reference placebo.

[fls]

The studies showing benefits from homeopathy would have to be refuted. As the Wikipedia article notes: "Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

There are several problem with this approach. In anything that follows a normal distribution, there will always be statistical outliers. If you do a hundred sets of 5 coin tosses, there's a good chance that 3 of the sets will be all heads. Do you think that if you just look at those 3 sets (throwing out the other 97) and say "the chance that I could toss all heads is 1 in 32 and yet I did it three times" that you have demonstrated evidence of an ability to alter the results of a coin toss?

The second problem that you have is that the bulk of the published research is equivalent to playing with a weighted coin. The study design/execution (rather than the efficacy of the treatment) makes it more likely than not that you will get a positive result. Out of the thousands of studies published on homeopathy, only 22 were found that weren't played with a weighted coin (sorta) and of those 15 showed effectiveness. And taking into consideration publication bias, realistically, we have no idea what those few positive results represents out of the total research performed in this area.

Furthermore, you selected out the only review which was done in a way that allowed the positive results to stand. Additional meta-analyses that controlled for the effect of the weighted coin (i.e. took into consideration the effect of study design/execution on the results) found that as you eliminate bias the effects get smaller and disappear.

All this is without taking into consideration the biggest problem of all. Positive results in isolation are likely to be false. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Linda

[fls]

Not if it works (which, in my opinion, is still an open question). My point about the placebo effect is that, to my knowledge, there is no good explanation of how it works either.

There is a good explanation of how it works. I summarized the main points in another thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1972723#post1972723).

Linda

[Rodney]

For the lurkers out there, let's summarize Rodney's position through this whole thread:

Homeopathy might work even though it has never been shown to work. I know this because some cough medicines don't cure respiratory infections and because the placebo effect exists.

Thank you for summarizing my position; ;) however: Moochie started this thread because he is exercised that someone thinks a "homeopathic" OTC cough medicine works. He absolutely, incontrovertibly knows it can't work because it claims to be homeopathic. Of course, Moochie -- like me, Garrette, and everyone else here -- has no idea if the cough medicine actually even is homeopathic, let alone knowing if it works. I then noted that there is significant doubt whether non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines are efficacious. Linda pointed out that there is some evidence that they are, but it still does not seem that there is a significant benefit in taking non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines over placebos. I then noted that the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy in general is not quite as unequivocal as most here seem to believe, and that how homeopathy works is irrelevant to this thread.

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you for summarizing my position; ;)

This does seem to be a decent sumary of your argument.

however: Moochie started this thread because he is exercised that someone thinks a "homeopathic" OTC cough medicine works. He absolutely, incontrovertibly knows it can't work because it claims to be homeopathic. Of course, Moochie -- like me, Garrette, and everyone else here -- has no idea if the cough medicine actually even is homeopathic, let alone knowing if it works. I then noted that there is significant doubt whether non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines are efficacious. Linda pointed out that there is some evidence that they are, but it still does not seem that there is a significant benefit in taking non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines over placebos. I then noted that the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy in general is not quite as unequivocal as most here seem to believe, and that how homeopathy works is irrelevant to this thread.


Got it, you believe in magic. Homeopathys Law of the Infintesmimal is just the Law of Contagion.

You don't seem to be able to explain how it can possibly work, constantly ignore any question about how it is in disagreement with all experiance and experiments in pharmacology and chemistry. Please explain how asprin and homeopathy can both do anything in a single model.

[Garrette]

Thank you for summarizing my position; ;) however: Moochie started this thread because he is exercised that someone thinks a "homeopathic" OTC cough medicine works. He absolutely, incontrovertibly knows it can't work because it claims to be homeopathic. Of course, Moochie -- like me, Garrette, and everyone else here -- has no idea if the cough medicine actually even is homeopathic, let alone knowing if it works. I then noted that there is significant doubt whether non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines are efficacious. Linda pointed out that there is some evidence that they are, but it still does not seem that there is a significant benefit in taking non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines over placebos. I then noted that the evidence regarding the lack of efficacy of homeopathy in general is not quite as unequivocal as most here seem to believe, and that how homeopathy works is irrelevant to this thread.Okay, I'll be a bit less flippant.

There are a lot of issues here.

1. Homeopathic remedies of any kind: Have they been shown to work beyond placebo? Answer: No

2. Remedies which are labeled homeopathic but which may not in fact be homeopathic: Do they work? Answer: No way of knowing, but I wouldn't let my kids touch them. If they're not homeopathic then they are likely, imo, either sugar water (harmless) or herbal, the quality control of which is virtually non-existent.

3. OTC cough medicines: Do they cure underlying illness? Answer: Of course not, but they never made that claim. Do they alleviate symptoms: Some have been shown to, both as specific brands and also as generic active ingredients. Those which make claims not supported by findings applicable to their active ingredients should be pulled.

[gopi]

Because the product tested must be identical to what is available to consumers.

The active ingredients are the same. It is identical in _every_way_that_matters_.

It doesn't matter who signs your paycheck, dextromethorphan is still the same chemical and still affects your body the same way.

If you are suggesting that, contrary to the belief of those who test and analyze these compounds, that the color of the liquid, or the amount of sugar, or whether they use corn syrup vs. cane sugar, matter, then please, explain yourself.

There are numerous companies that produce the same medicine in the same factories, but merely bottle it with different brands for stores, so it's clear that different _brands_ may not have the same effect.

Equally, the same "brand" may have different forms, different types of pills, etc.

You have repetitively requested "same brand" yet have, so far, refused to explain what relevant differences are. If you want to say "identical", perhaps you should insist on getting your hands on the half-used bottles of cough syrup from any research that yielded positive results - otherwise, it might not be "identical".

[LordoftheLeftHand]

What do you say about the proposition that a person who drinks a placebo, such as sugared water, can recover from an illness faster than someone who drinks that same sugared water, but who is told that it is sugared water? Is that quackery? If you say no, please explain how the placebo effect works.

That is actually very insightful Rodney. It is a sign that you might be starting to understand.

Yes someone given sugar water and told it is medicine is more likely to "report" feeling better than someone given sugar water and told it is sugar water. It seems crazy, but that is what a placebo will do.

Funny story: When I was a teenager we pulled a nasty trick on a friend. At a party we kept giving him glasses of beer. He and several other people eventually became more and more intoxicated the more they drank. The only problem was; the beer this particular person was drinking was non-alcoholic! We were secretly filling his glass with non-alcoholic beer from the refrigerator instead of the keg that everyone else was drinking from.

LLH

[Zep]

What do you say about the proposition that a person who drinks a placebo, such as sugared water, can recover from an illness faster than someone who drinks that same sugared water, but who is told that it is sugared water? Is that quackery? If you say no, please explain how the placebo effect works.Hooray! Now you are getting it! That is exactly how placebo works, provided the patient believes that the sugared water is an effective medicine (called the verum) for the ailment. And it works in reverse as well - if the patient is told that the substance is not effective, the effect can be less, even though it is the medicine that does work (this is called the "nocebo effect").

To confuse this further, sometimes the patients believe they feel better (or worse) even though objective measurements show they have not changed at all.

And therein lies a basic problem of testing medicines and some medical procedures: If the testing subjects become aware in any way that the substance or procedure they are testing is not what they are expecting to get, the placebo/nocebo effect can easily kick in and distort the results. So to get a "true picture" of the effect of a medicine (or even procedures), the subject needs to be "blinded" as to what it is they are being given (verum or placebo). The practice of "double blinding" is to blind the test substance selection from the physician/tester as well, to eliminate any subliminal messages to the subject indicating placebo/verum substances.

You need to be aware that the placebo/nocebo effect is very powerful, and no-one is immune from it. I have experienced it myself when I was a guinea-pig for asthma medication trials. Fortunately I was not unpleasantly surprised when the blinding was uncovered on the studies - I knew that I may well have been affected by placebo effect.

But more importantly in the case of homeopathy, the patients' wellbeing relies very much on this placebo effect. Although some homeopaths are so pathetically uneducated that they do not understand the maths or science involved in their deception, the unconscionable part is that many do. And yet they continue to take money off patients under blatantly false pretenses of medical ability. They also claim homeopathy is cheaper than "conventional" medicine...perhaps a glance at Boiron's accounts (http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/homeopathic-laboratory/financial-datas.htm) gives that a lie. Forecast 400 million Euros sales in 2006 is not chickenfeed (that's more than half a billion US dollars, btw). And that's just one homeopathic manufacturer...!

[LordoftheLeftHand]

They also claim homeopathy is cheaper than "conventional" medicine...

A good point. Even if homeopathic "medicine" is much cheaper than "regular medicine", that says nothing about its effectiveness.

Also I'd bet the profit margins on homeopathic medicine is much higher. One drop of active ingrediant would likely produce enough 30C "medicne" to provide a lifetime supply to every human that has ever lived.

LLH

[Blue Wode]

Also I'd bet the profit margins on homeopathic medicine is much higher. One drop of active ingrediant would likely produce enough 30C "medicne" to provide a lifetime supply to every human that has ever lived.
I’m sure the “20-million dollar duck” story has done the rounds here before, but for those not familiar with it, here it is again:


Oscillococcinum, that 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves dilutions that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck’s liver and heart for 40 days.

Were a single molecule of the duck’s heart or liver to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). Quackwatch—a website well named for a duck authority—quotes the February 17, 1997, issue of U.S. News & World Report as reporting that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/11/1755

[Rodney]

There are several problem with this approach. In anything that follows a normal distribution, there will always be statistical outliers. If you do a hundred sets of 5 coin tosses, there's a good chance that 3 of the sets will be all heads. Do you think that if you just look at those 3 sets (throwing out the other 97) and say "the chance that I could toss all heads is 1 in 32 and yet I did it three times" that you have demonstrated evidence of an ability to alter the results of a coin toss?

The second problem that you have is that the bulk of the published research is equivalent to playing with a weighted coin. The study design/execution (rather than the efficacy of the treatment) makes it more likely than not that you will get a positive result. Out of the thousands of studies published on homeopathy, only 22 were found that weren't played with a weighted coin (sorta) and of those 15 showed effectiveness. And taking into consideration publication bias, realistically, we have no idea what those few positive results represents out of the total research performed in this area.

Furthermore, you selected out the only review which was done in a way that allowed the positive results to stand. Additional meta-analyses that controlled for the effect of the weighted coin (i.e. took into consideration the effect of study design/execution on the results) found that as you eliminate bias the effects get smaller and disappear.

All this is without taking into consideration the biggest problem of all. Positive results in isolation are likely to be false. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Linda So why doesn't the above logic apply to the few tests that have shown that some OTC cough medicines are efficacious?

[Rodney]

There is a good explanation of how it works. I summarized the main points in another thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1972723#post1972723).

Linda

How do you explain this:

"DON'T try this at home. Several times a day, for several days, you induce pain in someone. You control the pain with morphine until the final day of the experiment, when you replace the morphine with saline solution. Guess what? The saline takes the pain away.

"This is the placebo effect: somehow, sometimes, a whole lot of nothing can be very powerful. Except it's not quite nothing. When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared.

"So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know."
See http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

[Mojo]

Never mind exactly how the placebo effect works: do you have any evidence that any homoeopathic cough medicine works better than placebo?

[Moochie]

Not if it works (which, in my opinion, is still an open question). My point about the placebo effect is that, to my knowledge, there is no good explanation of how it works either.

The "placebo" effect isn't owned by homeopathy. Any quackery will do.

There is probably a real basis for it, but homeopathy ain't it.

M.

[Mojo]

The "placebo" effect isn't owned by homeopathy. Any quackery will do. The placebo effect isn't owned by quackery. It will also operate alongside any medicine that actually works. And there you get not only the placebo effect but also the effect of the medicine.

[Rodney]

Never mind exactly how the placebo effect works: do you have any evidence that any homoeopathic cough medicine works better than placebo? I don't even know if any homeopathic cough medicine has been subjected to a controlled study. Does anyone know?

[Moochie]

The placebo effect isn't owned by quackery. It will also operate alongside any medicine that actually works. And there you get not only the placebo effect but also the effect of the medicine.


Indeed, but quack remedies like to arrogate the positive (not the negative) results to themselves.

M.

[Mojo]

I don't even know if any homeopathic cough medicine has been subjected to a controlled study. Does anyone know?If not, why not? Don't they want to find out whether or not their nostrums work?

[fls]

So why doesn't the above logic apply to the few tests that have shown that some OTC cough medicines are efficacious?

The same logic does apply.

There are thousands of studies on non-homeopathic drugs and thousands of those studies show an effect above placebo. There are thousands of studies on homeopathic drugs and a handful show effect above placebo. This provides evidence that non-homeopathic drugs have a specific physiologic effect, and evidence that homeopathic drugs do not have a specific physiologic effect. We expect to see a few homeopathic drug studies with positive results (above placebo) due to chance, and the amount that we see is what we expect to see if the null hypothesis (i.e. no effect) is true.

The OTC cough medicines studies do not exist in isolation. The homeopathic studies do. The OTC cough medicine studies are the tip of the iceberg. They are built on painstakingly gathered knowledge about the physiology of the human body and various effects that chemicals can have on these processes. Research that meticulously documents every steps in the process of how a particular chemical can lead to a particular effect builds to the point where the clinical trial is simply the final step in showing what happens. Also, in addition to the RCT's that have been mentioned, there are numerous other types of controlled studies on cough medicines that do show an effect above placebo. All that information taken together serves to re-inforce the paradigm behind the standard model (to borrow a term).

Homeopathic studies exist in a vaccuum. There is no demonstration of any step in the process. There's no physiologic basis for the proposed effects (above placebo) and there's no evidence for an alternate paradigm. What you see instead is a collection of studies that follows a normal distribution - exactly what you'd expect to see if any differences were due to chance - and someone has drawn a circle around one of the tails. That positive results can't be duplicated also follows exactly what you'd expect to see due to chance.

The comparison between homeopathy and standard medicine isn't a matter of pulling out a few clinical trials and saying that some homeopathy trials are equivocable and some standard trials are equivocable, therefore both are equally valid. It completely misses the point that there are a billion bits of information that underlie the clinical trials and zero bits of information that underlie the homeopathic trials.

Linda

[Garrette]

Bravo, fls.

[fls]

How do you explain this:

"DON'T try this at home. Several times a day, for several days, you induce pain in someone. You control the pain with morphine until the final day of the experiment, when you replace the morphine with saline solution. Guess what? The saline takes the pain away.

"This is the placebo effect: somehow, sometimes, a whole lot of nothing can be very powerful. Except it's not quite nothing. When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared.

"So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know."
See http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

Articles written for lay people like to manufacture mystery where none exists. Those results build on our knowledge of endogenous opioids.

Linda

[Moochie]

The same logic does apply.


The comparison between homeopathy and standard medicine isn't a matter of pulling out a few clinical trials and saying that some homeopathy trials are equivocable and some standard trials are equivocable, therefore both are equally valid. It completely misses the point that there are a billion bits of information that underlie the clinical trials and zero bits of information that underlie the homeopathic trials.

Linda

What fls is saying here is that you can fool some of the people some of the time...

M.

[Rodney]

The same logic does apply.

There are thousands of studies on non-homeopathic drugs and thousands of those studies show an effect above placebo. There are thousands of studies on homeopathic drugs and a handful show effect above placebo. This provides evidence that non-homeopathic drugs have a specific physiologic effect, and evidence that homeopathic drugs do not have a specific physiologic effect. We expect to see a few homeopathic drug studies with positive results (above placebo) due to chance, and the amount that we see is what we expect to see if the null hypothesis (i.e. no effect) is true.

The OTC cough medicines studies do not exist in isolation. The homeopathic studies do. The OTC cough medicine studies are the tip of the iceberg. They are built on painstakingly gathered knowledge about the physiology of the human body and various effects that chemicals can have on these processes. Research that meticulously documents every steps in the process of how a particular chemical can lead to a particular effect builds to the point where the clinical trial is simply the final step in showing what happens. Also, in addition to the RCT's that have been mentioned, there are numerous other types of controlled studies on cough medicines that do show an effect above placebo. All that information taken together serves to re-inforce the paradigm behind the standard model (to borrow a term).

Homeopathic studies exist in a vaccuum. There is no demonstration of any step in the process. There's no physiologic basis for the proposed effects (above placebo) and there's no evidence for an alternate paradigm. What you see instead is a collection of studies that follows a normal distribution - exactly what you'd expect to see if any differences were due to chance - and someone has drawn a circle around one of the tails. That positive results can't be duplicated also follows exactly what you'd expect to see due to chance.

The comparison between homeopathy and standard medicine isn't a matter of pulling out a few clinical trials and saying that some homeopathy trials are equivocable and some standard trials are equivocable, therefore both are equally valid. It completely misses the point that there are a billion bits of information that underlie the clinical trials and zero bits of information that underlie the homeopathic trials.

Linda Do the results of studies of non-homeopathic cough medicines follow approximately the same normal distribution as studies of homeopathic medicines?

[Rodney]

Articles written for lay people like to manufacture mystery where none exists. Those results build on our knowledge of endogenous opioids.
Linda
Since most of us here are not doctors, an explanation of why the saline solution works to block pain when the naloxone is not added to it, but fails to work to block pain when the naloxone is added to it, would be appreciated.

[Mojo]

Since most of us here are not doctors, an explanation of why the saline solution works to block pain when the naloxone is not added to it, but fails to work to block pain when the naloxone is added to it, would be appreciated.What's this got to do with whether homoeopathic cough medicines have any effect above placebo? Has a similar experiment been performed with a homoeopathic remedy, a placebo and something that blocks the effect of the homoeopathic remedy (NB: you'd have to prove the homoeopathic remedy had any effect first, of course)?

[Rodney]

If not, why not? Don't they want to find out whether or not their nostrums work?
Doesn't "they" include most major drug manufacturers? I would think, if companies such as Procter & Gamble (manufacturer of Vicks) are confident that non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines are superior to homeopathic ones, they would want to see that fact proven in controlled tests.

[Rodney]

What's this got to do with whether homoeopathic cough medicines have any effect above placebo? Has a similar experiment been performed with a homoeopathic remedy, a placebo and something that blocks the effect of the homoeopathic remedy (NB: you'd have to prove the homoeopathic remedy had any effect first, of course)?
The question does not necessarily have anything to do with homeopathic cough medicines, but I'm trying to learn more about the placebo effect, which could be related to homeopathy.

[fls]

Do the results of studies of non-homeopathic cough medicines follow approximately the same normal distribution as studies of homeopathic medicines?

No. They show a distribution that is significantly different from that expected due to chance.

Linda

[fls]

Since most of us here are not doctors, an explanation of why the saline solution works to block pain when the naloxone is not added to it, but fails to work to block pain when the naloxone is added to it, would be appreciated.

Our body contains opioid receptors. Chemicals produced by the body (endogenous) and chemicals taken from an external source (like pharmaceuticals) (exogenous) will bind to the receptors and lead to relief of pain. There are a variety of conditions/situations that lead to the production and release of opioids by the body. Examples of opioids are endorphin (endo) and morphine (exo). Naloxone blocks the opioid receptor. If the application of a placebo was leading to pain relief which was blocked by naloxone, that suggests that at least part of the pain relief from placebo was due to the endogenous release of opioids.

Linda

[logical muse]

Linda,

You are doing a marvellous job here. I'd like you to know that I really appreciate it.



eta: I've nominated your posts. :)

[jond]

I second that. And, Linda, I might add you are incredibly patient and thorough. You must be one heck of a doctor!

[fls]

Doesn't "they" include most major drug manufacturers? I would think, if companies such as Procter & Gamble (manufacturer of Vicks) are confident that non-homeopathic OTC cough medicines are superior to homeopathic ones, they would want to see that fact proven in controlled tests.

Clinical trials cost money and time. Procter & Gamble already has demonstrated that their medicines are superior to homeopathic medicines by virtue of FDA approval. They already can say "this medicine has been proven to be safe and effective, and that of a rival has not been proven to be safe and effective". They're better off spending the money on marketing.

Linda

[fls]

The question does not necessarily have anything to do with homeopathic cough medicines, but I'm trying to learn more about the placebo effect, which could be related to homeopathy.

I'd like to see the placebo effect renamed. It suggests that there is an actual physiologic effect, leading to healing independent of the usual processes. And we have no evidence that that is the case. Studies suggest that the placebo "effect" has nothing to do with healing and everything to do with a statistical artifact, plus some people fooling themselves while they get better on their own. In studies designed to look at this issue, people on placebo do not heal any faster than people that are not on placebo.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11372012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6369471&dopt=Citation

Linda

[fls]

See http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

I forgot that I wanted to complain about this particular article. I've seen it referenced here a few times and find it annoying. This is what I said about it on another forum when it first came out.

"That was another fine demonstration of a journalist doing a crappy job at reporting scientific information. I think he got all the usual mistakes in there - factual errors, exaggerated importance of a single finding, miss where the real controversies lie and manufacture controversies that aren't present, present bizarre explanations/solutions while downplaying reasonable explanations/solutions, etc."

Linda

[fls]

You are doing a marvellous job here. I'd like you to know that I really appreciate it.

I second that.

Thank you.

Linda

[Rodney]

No. They show a distribution that is significantly different from that expected due to chance.
Linda
I'm not sure what you're basing that statement upon. Have you undertaken a statistical analysis of all studies of the efficacy of OTC cough medicines?

[Mojo]

I'm not sure what you're basing that statement upon. Have you undertaken a statistical analysis of all studies of the efficacy of OTC cough medicines?Have you?

[fls]

I'm not sure what you're basing that statement upon. Have you undertaken a statistical analysis of all studies of the efficacy of OTC cough medicines?

I reviewed the studies on cough medicines in the past so I was already familiar with the literature, and I looked at them again for this thread to refresh my memory. One expects to find a particular pattern to the results depending upon whether positive results are due to chance or due to specific effects. The pattern of results for studies of non-homeopathic cough medicines fits that due to specific effects.

Linda

[Rodney]

Our body contains opioid receptors. Chemicals produced by the body (endogenous) and chemicals taken from an external source (like pharmaceuticals) (exogenous) will bind to the receptors and lead to relief of pain. There are a variety of conditions/situations that lead to the production and release of opioids by the body. Examples of opioids are endorphin (endo) and morphine (exo). Naloxone blocks the opioid receptor. If the application of a placebo was leading to pain relief which was blocked by naloxone, that suggests that at least part of the pain relief from placebo was due to the endogenous release of opioids.
Linda
Thanks for the explanation, Linda. If I understand you correctly, the medical community now believes that the saline solution works to reduce pain either partly or entirely because it causes the production and release of opioids by the body. However, until the Benedetti study, was this the medical consensus, or was the consensus rather that the patient experienced less pain entirely because (s)he thought morphine -- and not a saline solution -- was being administered?

[Rodney]

I reviewed the studies on cough medicines in the past so I was already familiar with the literature, and I looked at them again for this thread to refresh my memory. One expects to find a particular pattern to the results depending upon whether positive results are due to chance or due to specific effects. The pattern of results for studies of non-homeopathic cough medicines fits that due to specific effects.

Linda
But have not a number of studies shown that OTC cough medicines performed no better than placebos? If so, don't you need to undertake an overall statistical analysis of all studies of OTC cough medicines to determine whether the composite results are significantly above chance?

[Zep]

I'd like to see the placebo effect renamed. It suggests that there is an actual physiologic effect, leading to healing independent of the usual processes. And we have no evidence that that is the case. Studies suggest that the placebo "effect" has nothing to do with healing and everything to do with a statistical artifact, plus some people fooling themselves while they get better on their own. In studies designed to look at this issue, people on placebo do not heal any faster than people that are not on placebo.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11372012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6369471&dopt=Citation

LindaWould this be the psychological effect where the subject believes they are better (or worse) despite the actual efficacy (or non-efficacy) of the treatment? If so, perhaps the placebo (or nocebo) effect can be defined as the difference between what the subject/patient thinks they feel and what their true physical condition actually is?

[Zep]

But have not a number of studies shown that OTC cough medicines performed no better than placebos?(1) Which studies?

(2) Define "OTC cough medicines".

(3) What were their actual medical claims?

(3) Quantify what the "performance" measurement was.

For a start...

[Rodney]

Have you?

Absolutely. I have burned the midnight oil on countless evenings undertaking a statistical analysis of all studies of the efficacy of OTC cough medicines. I just want to make sure Linda has obtained the same results as me. ;)

[Zep]

Absolutely. I have burned the midnight oil on countless evenings undertaking a statistical analysis of all studies of the efficacy of OTC cough medicines. I just want to make sure Linda has obtained the same results as me. ;)So publish.

Here.

Now.

OK?

[Rodney]

So publish.

Here.

Now.

OK?
Uh, Zep, it was a JOKE! I guess I should have used this symbol. :D

[fls]

But have not a number of studies shown that OTC cough medicines performed no better than placebos? If so, don't you need to undertake an overall statistical analysis of all studies of OTC cough medicines to determine whether the composite results are significantly above chance?

Definitely. And I should have stated it differently in order to make it clear that both positive and negative studies have to be included when looking at the overall pattern. You need to take into consideration that most studies are powered so that there is a greater chance of missing a positive effect (false negative) than there is of missing a negative effect (false positive). It would be unusual and maybe even suspicious if there were no negative studies when looking at all the published studies. A statistical analysis helps you figure out what positive results you expect due to chance and what negative results you expect due to chance.

Linda

[Mojo]

Look, Rodney, it is up to the proponents of homoeopathy to demonstrate that it works. Off you go.

[fls]

Would this be the psychological effect where the subject believes they are better (or worse) despite the actual efficacy (or non-efficacy) of the treatment? If so, perhaps the placebo (or nocebo) effect can be defined as the difference between what the subject/patient thinks they feel and what their true physical condition actually is?

I think that's what it boils down to. But it is difficult to tease that out from regression in many types of studies. Normally, it wouldn't really matter, since all we usually want to know is "what is the specific effect of the drug above and beyond these other effects that are not specific to the drug". It becomes an issue when you see claims made that the placebo effect represents some sort of special healing power of the mind. And I think the use of the word "effect" makes it easier for people to frame it that way.

Linda

[Zep]

Uh, Zep, it was a JOKE! I guess I should have used this symbol. :DUh huh. No kidding.

So you haven't done any research yourself after all.

What Mojo said, OK?

[Rodney]

Definitely. And I should have stated it differently in order to make it clear that both positive and negative studies have to be included when looking at the overall pattern. You need to take into consideration that most studies are powered so that there is a greater chance of missing a positive effect (false negative) than there is of missing a negative effect (false positive). It would be unusual and maybe even suspicious if there were no negative studies when looking at all the published studies. A statistical analysis helps you figure out what positive results you expect due to chance and what negative results you expect due to chance.

Linda
So you've done such a statistical analysis for OTC cough medicine studies? If so, at what percentage level were the composite results significant?

[Zep]

I think that's what it boils down to. But it is difficult to tease that out from regression in many types of studies. Normally, it wouldn't really matter, since all we usually want to know is "what is the specific effect of the drug above and beyond these other effects that are not specific to the drug". It becomes an issue when you see claims made that the placebo effect represents some sort of special healing power of the mind. And I think the use of the word "effect" makes it easier for people to frame it that way.

LindaThat does seem to gel with the homeopaths' claims of actual "cure", versus the reality of no effect at all. It also suggests that science and homeopaths are comparing apples and oranges: Homeopaths are taking their results from what the patients tell them they feel, whereas science uses objective gathering of medical facts. Hence the discrepancy, and thus the differences of opinion.

[fls]

Thanks for the explanation, Linda. If I understand you correctly, the medical community now believes that the saline solution works to reduce pain either partly or entirely because it causes the production and release of opioids by the body. However, until the Benedetti study, was this the medical consensus, or was the consensus rather that the patient experienced less pain entirely because (s)he thought morphine -- and not a saline solution -- was being administered?

The research indicating that endogenous opioids were involved pre-dated Benedetti's studies (by decades). Ongoing study - including Benedetti's - serves to clarify the mechanisms. Rather than a shift in consensus, it was probably more like a gradual change from low to high consensus.

Linda

[fls]

So you've done such a statistical analysis for OTC cough medicine studies? If so, at what percentage level were the composite results significant?

What do you mean when you say "composite results"? Are you talking about a metanalysis? Because the studies are not suitable for metanalysis - at least not for the question being asked. If you are talking about something else can you clarify your question?

Linda

[Unnamed]

I'd like to see the placebo effect renamed. It suggests that there is an actual physiologic effect, leading to healing independent of the usual processes. And we have no evidence that that is the case. Studies suggest that the placebo "effect" has nothing to do with healing and everything to do with a statistical artifact, plus some people fooling themselves while they get better on their own. In studies designed to look at this issue, people on placebo do not heal any faster than people that are not on placebo.
Linda, I thank you for this series of posts, in name of the rest of the lurkers. Don't worry if the original recipient doesn't appreciate them.

I was always bothered by the placebo effect, but your explanation makes perfect sense.

[Rodney]

What do you mean when you say "composite results"? Are you talking about a metanalysis? Because the studies are not suitable for metanalysis - at least not for the question being asked. If you are talking about something else can you clarify your question?
Linda
I'm simply trying to figure out on what basis you have concluded that studies of the efficacy of OTC cough medicines "show a distribution that is significantly different from that expected due to chance."

[exarch]

The fact that some ingredients of OTC cough medicines appear to be slightly useful does not necessarily mean that any specific OTC cough medicine is efficacious.

I say we can easily conclude that any OTC cough medicine which contains any of the ingredients that have shown to have some useful effects can be considered useful themselves. Perhaps that doesn't mean they will be useful for all of the people all of the time, but at least they've shown themselves to have at least a smidgen of scientific backing for their claims.

So Rodney, how about you giving us an example of an OTC cough medicine that hasn't got any studies to back any of its ingredients?

(Assuming of course that you haven't done this yet during the now apparently 7 pages of this thread so far. But I bet you haven't)