Homeopathic Cough Medicine

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Homeopathic cough medicine causes "people to die all the time'?

Homeopathy kills, why should cough medicine get treated differently from homeopathic cancer treatments?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Moochie

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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.

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Nucular

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Nucular

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]

Originally Posted by RemieV

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Nucular

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]

Originally Posted by wahrheit

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]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Rephrase: I think the problem begins with your belief that quackery is okay.

What's your definition of quackery?

Originally Posted by RemieV

Way to duck the point, by the way.

I disagree that I was ducking it.

Originally Posted by RemieV

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Rodney

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]

Originally Posted by Nucular

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.