Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation(skeptic.org.uk)
skeptic.org.uk
Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/07/research-into-homeopathy-data-falsification-fabrication-and-manipulation/
171 comments
There's more to it. I am someone who has had medical problems that took years to diagnose. I had doctors who were terrific and I had doctors be almost accusatory when the tests they ran came back negative. When the medical establishment fails you it's tough, and there plenty of snake oil salesmen who are happy to sell you a cure THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT!!! I can see the allure when there's literally no one else to turn to.
I've heard of a strategy that can help some people challenge their belief for issues like homeopathy or flat earth. The idea is to ask them to rate on a scale of 1-10 the strength of their belief. As in, "how convinced are you on a scale of 1-10 that the earth is flat?". If they give anything less than 10, you then follow up by asking them why that score and why not a higher or lower score as in (if they said e.g., 8/10): "What would make it a 9/10 or a 10/10?".
Basically having them "ironman" the opposite side of the argument can cause people to start to think more objectively about the issue. However, if the person says 10/10 there apparently isn't much that can be done.
I've never tried this myself as I don't have any flat earther or homeopathy believers in my entourage, but it does seem to make sense and I've used this to question some of my beliefs myself. Not saying it would work with your family members either though.
Basically having them "ironman" the opposite side of the argument can cause people to start to think more objectively about the issue. However, if the person says 10/10 there apparently isn't much that can be done.
I've never tried this myself as I don't have any flat earther or homeopathy believers in my entourage, but it does seem to make sense and I've used this to question some of my beliefs myself. Not saying it would work with your family members either though.
Here's a better strategy: don't waste time on engaging them on that topic.
The best possible outcome is that you waste a ton of your time (and theirs), and convince them that the Earth isn't flat.
Did anyone benefit? If we chose to try and convince people about everything they are wrong about, we'd be endlessly debating about every minor thing that's already been established and replicated.
The best possible outcome is that you waste a ton of your time (and theirs), and convince them that the Earth isn't flat.
Did anyone benefit? If we chose to try and convince people about everything they are wrong about, we'd be endlessly debating about every minor thing that's already been established and replicated.
Yes, convincing my family members to take actual medicine rather than rely on homeopathic remedies has benefits.
I dunno man there are plenty of smart people that have simply been misled or are in circumstances where they’re more easily prone to fall into these kinds of traps. Nice and good people too. It feels cruel to not spend at least a little time helping them help themselves. At the end of the day of course it’s your decision what you wanna waste time on but it’s I find it’s a worthwhile pursuit for those I’ve bonded with
If it’s someone you love it might not be a waste of time, esp if you can pull it off in a constructive way that makes both people feel respected and appreciated regardless of where the discussion goes.
> They get a fuzzy feeling of superiority in their discovery that the mainstream ignores.
I mean, this is the allure of all quackery, conspiracy theories, cults, and other forms of "alternative" facts: The mainstream doesn't want you to know this secret that I'm sharing with you! Doctors hate this one simple trick! Your financial planner is lying to you, but if you buy my seminar, you'll learn the truth! The government is silencing us through mainstream social media, but if you come to Social Network Blah, you will be able to hear the truth! Employment is a scam, but if you join Amway you can learn the real truth about business and your own boss! My religion offers the truth that the rest hide from you!
Somehow, human beings have become vulnerable to "Truth FOMO" and when these guys really get their hooks into you and you start to base your very identity on their truth, well, you can't back out of it without invalidating your entire identity.
I mean, this is the allure of all quackery, conspiracy theories, cults, and other forms of "alternative" facts: The mainstream doesn't want you to know this secret that I'm sharing with you! Doctors hate this one simple trick! Your financial planner is lying to you, but if you buy my seminar, you'll learn the truth! The government is silencing us through mainstream social media, but if you come to Social Network Blah, you will be able to hear the truth! Employment is a scam, but if you join Amway you can learn the real truth about business and your own boss! My religion offers the truth that the rest hide from you!
Somehow, human beings have become vulnerable to "Truth FOMO" and when these guys really get their hooks into you and you start to base your very identity on their truth, well, you can't back out of it without invalidating your entire identity.
If it worked and had the scientific evidence behind it then would be called medicine.
It depends on the target market.
There are some medicines that do actually work, but they're advertised toward the people who believe in homeopathy, so they are labeled as homeopathic.
There are some medicines that do actually work, but they're advertised toward the people who believe in homeopathy, so they are labeled as homeopathic.
> There are some medicines that do actually work, but they're advertised toward the people who believe in homeopathy, so they are labeled as homeopathic.
Really?
That is a claim that could be backed with an example
Really?
That is a claim that could be backed with an example
Someone gives an example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40886084
I have dry eyes, and years ago my optometrist basically ordered me to buy a particular brand of homeopathic eye drops to use every day. All the drops have to do is wash off the surface of my eyes, and we don't want them to do anything but that. His point was that because they're homeopathic, they won't actually do anything, and because they're a reputable homeopathic brand, you can be pretty sure they don't contain anything that accidentally does something. Homeopathy as a way to ensure you're not getting medicine. Interesting way to look at it, I thought.
I wish more German doctors would acknowledge what utter quackery homeopathy is. Three separate doctors wanted to prescribe me homeopathy stuff last year, ended up not getting any help at all.
I think doctors do this when they want to give you a placebo. Pharmacies don’t carry placebos but they sure do carry a lot of products that don’t do anything except make you believe you took some medicine.
Hence the note that UK GPs would sometimes put on patient’s notes: TEETH
Tried Everything Else Try Homeopathy
Tried Everything Else Try Homeopathy
I like the German doctors who offer acupuncture and aromatherapy and such. It's just as nonsensical, but at least it's probably relaxing.
I had hayfever, it got worse every year. The pills worked but make me sleep half the day. After some years of that, my wife forced me to try all the hippie shit that I didn't believe in, and the acupuncture lady simply fixed it. Not reduced symptoms, just entirely gone, after a few treatments every year. It still doesn’t make sense to me. The only explanation I can think of is a placebo but wow placebos kick ass then!
Discussions I have with doctors and pharmacists about this situation are generally unproductive. There is this pervasive resistance to change and deep ties to traditional approaches.
A large chunk of the problem is that many common self-selection and over-the-counter medications are only by a doctor's prescription in German speaking countries.
Low risk medications, which in other countries a consumer can safely select and administer, are only available over-the-counter at pharmacies, other low risk medications require a script - examples of these include basic pain medication(OTC), NSAIDs(RX), PPIs(RX), skin treatments(OTC), anti-fungals(RX), anti-biotic drops(RX). Pharmacies also generally have short hours on Saturday, and are not open on Sundays.
Combining these factors leads to people seeking out a "solution", and those "solutions" are either homeopathic or merely just alcohol, since neither require a health care professional's assistance. There is also no shortage of homeopathic stores that promise therapeutic benefits, such as addressing fertility issues and chronic pain. Regulators regulate medicine, so non-medicines often fly under the radar, even when they're promoting medical therapies.
There's so many ways that this system fails in comparison to modern approaches:
Should a woman not have a sufficient stock of pain killers on a sunday during period cramps, her options would be to either beg a neighbour, or got to the emergency department of a hospital. In other countries, she could simply visit a supermarket or convenience store.
Children with head lice can't receive a treatment without a doctor's prescription, but there's no shortage of proven ineffective products stocking pharmacy shelves, hoping that some desperate parent will buy it just to see if it works.
A person with conjunctivitis needs to first visit a doctor, potentially waiting hours just to get the script, then hope that the pharmacy is still open. (Doctor's offices are frequently bogged down with people visiting for minor ailments because they can't get basic medications without it.)
In the realm of sexual health: While other countries have dispensing sexual health clinics with easy access to treatments and prophylactic medications, those afflicted in Germany and similar are often needlessly waiting, or worse simply spreading disease. With some medications and inoculations only available via a hospital appointment.
Overall it breeds distrust in the medical system and promotes unhealthy, worthless, scammy "alternatives".
A large chunk of the problem is that many common self-selection and over-the-counter medications are only by a doctor's prescription in German speaking countries.
Low risk medications, which in other countries a consumer can safely select and administer, are only available over-the-counter at pharmacies, other low risk medications require a script - examples of these include basic pain medication(OTC), NSAIDs(RX), PPIs(RX), skin treatments(OTC), anti-fungals(RX), anti-biotic drops(RX). Pharmacies also generally have short hours on Saturday, and are not open on Sundays.
Combining these factors leads to people seeking out a "solution", and those "solutions" are either homeopathic or merely just alcohol, since neither require a health care professional's assistance. There is also no shortage of homeopathic stores that promise therapeutic benefits, such as addressing fertility issues and chronic pain. Regulators regulate medicine, so non-medicines often fly under the radar, even when they're promoting medical therapies.
There's so many ways that this system fails in comparison to modern approaches:
Should a woman not have a sufficient stock of pain killers on a sunday during period cramps, her options would be to either beg a neighbour, or got to the emergency department of a hospital. In other countries, she could simply visit a supermarket or convenience store.
Children with head lice can't receive a treatment without a doctor's prescription, but there's no shortage of proven ineffective products stocking pharmacy shelves, hoping that some desperate parent will buy it just to see if it works.
A person with conjunctivitis needs to first visit a doctor, potentially waiting hours just to get the script, then hope that the pharmacy is still open. (Doctor's offices are frequently bogged down with people visiting for minor ailments because they can't get basic medications without it.)
In the realm of sexual health: While other countries have dispensing sexual health clinics with easy access to treatments and prophylactic medications, those afflicted in Germany and similar are often needlessly waiting, or worse simply spreading disease. With some medications and inoculations only available via a hospital appointment.
Overall it breeds distrust in the medical system and promotes unhealthy, worthless, scammy "alternatives".
In the U.S., sometimes a medicine is marked as “homeopathic” just to avoid regulation, and actually does contain a real active ingredient. This is the case with zinc lozenges (for colds), which contain an actual therapeutic dose of zinc but are presumably marketed as “homeopathic” since the FDA doesn’t regulate herbal or homeopathic “treatments.” Not sure if anything like that happens in Germany as well though.
https://www.arnicare.com/about/arnicare-topicals/arnicare-cr... is another example I've seen. The active ingredient is "Arnica montana 1X HPUS 7%", meaning they start at 7% and do a single 10:1 dilution, resulting in .7%. This is a pretty normal strength for a normal non-homeopathic cream but it's pretending to be homeopathic to avoid FDA evaluation.
this should count as false advertising.
Yup. Our doctor recommended "homeopathic" medicine that was actually pretty standard treatment.
Is that "homeopathic" or "herbal / dietary supplement"?
It’s not actually homeopathic, but for some reason it uses the word “homeopathic” on the packaging (I’ve seen it on multiple brands). Example: https://coldeeze.com/collections/lozenges
Weird! Particularly as searching for "homeopathic" on that page doesn't turn anything up. I guess it's one of those things where it might help and can't hurt: anyone who knows enough to know that "homeopathic" is bogus, can look at the ingredients and determine that it's actually got zinc.
What I don't get about homeopathy is that there's not even a plausible mechanism for it to work. So research into its effectiveness is like studying how well rocks repel tigers[1]. It seems necessary to show that a homeopathic "medicine" is substantially different than plain old water first.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GzMizVAl-0&pp=ygUTc2ltcHNvbnM...
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GzMizVAl-0&pp=ygUTc2ltcHNvbnM...
I dunno, I'd make the bold claim that most rocks will repel almost all tigers when deployed energetically enough.
Many people who are into homeopathy have no notion of "mechanism". They don't know to ask such questions, or perhaps they don't care to.
In the worst case scenario, they accept lack of mechanism because "there are things science doesn't know", especially if their personal experience (random charlatan demonstration) is duped into belief.
In the worst case scenario, they accept lack of mechanism because "there are things science doesn't know", especially if their personal experience (random charlatan demonstration) is duped into belief.
This gets obfuscated by claiming that water has a memory and will "remember" those substances. Which is of course entirely implausible for anyone with sufficient physics or chemistry background.
You're right that no further study is needed for homeopathy, it simply cannot work at these kinds of dilutions.
You're right that no further study is needed for homeopathy, it simply cannot work at these kinds of dilutions.
The plausible mechanism is placebo which is mediated by the autonomous nervous system. The same mechanism at play with back pain via either chiropractic (placebo) and the majority of spinal surgeries (placebo).
Engineers and logical types take everything too much at face value (e.g. astrology and personality types, as well as health and fitness). The reality is usually that neither camp /really/ knows what they're doing, but have plausible (to them) explanations. Though empiricism is much more mentally rigorous than woo-woo/sham.
Generally, if the treatment achieves the patient's desired goals -- I don't think it matters (barring severe ethical concerns like body integrity dysphoria). People not generally educated in a Western background are more likely to be susceptible to placebo or "magic" (this includes the less educated in the anglosphere but also the majority in foreign countries).
Barring life-saving procedures, most elective medicine is -- imco -- on a similar, if not slightly higher standing compared to homeopathy et al.
Engineers and logical types take everything too much at face value (e.g. astrology and personality types, as well as health and fitness). The reality is usually that neither camp /really/ knows what they're doing, but have plausible (to them) explanations. Though empiricism is much more mentally rigorous than woo-woo/sham.
Generally, if the treatment achieves the patient's desired goals -- I don't think it matters (barring severe ethical concerns like body integrity dysphoria). People not generally educated in a Western background are more likely to be susceptible to placebo or "magic" (this includes the less educated in the anglosphere but also the majority in foreign countries).
Barring life-saving procedures, most elective medicine is -- imco -- on a similar, if not slightly higher standing compared to homeopathy et al.
Like any cult pseudoscience it relies on the placebo and nocebo effects.
It also does affect people for sure... For things like a very real ear infection... the a-holes will leave kids in agony for weeks before parents see a proper physician for antibiotics.
Note Psychoneuroimmunology is also interesting, but a more legitimate area of scientific study. It takes a deep scientific look into induced immune system disorders, and unlike cult nonsense it has quantifiable scientific studies (usually done with rodents) that can be replicated in your own institutional labs.
Cult Homeopathy is just expensive child neglect in my opinion... offering the worst outcomes for the naive and superstitious.
It also does affect people for sure... For things like a very real ear infection... the a-holes will leave kids in agony for weeks before parents see a proper physician for antibiotics.
Note Psychoneuroimmunology is also interesting, but a more legitimate area of scientific study. It takes a deep scientific look into induced immune system disorders, and unlike cult nonsense it has quantifiable scientific studies (usually done with rodents) that can be replicated in your own institutional labs.
Cult Homeopathy is just expensive child neglect in my opinion... offering the worst outcomes for the naive and superstitious.
Two years after Oncology said they'd take the whole thing Very Seriously and Do A Thorough Investigation, Frass's article is still up on Oncology's website - not a single disclosure, notice, etc when it should have been retracted:
https://theoncologist.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10...
He even got caught modifying the procedures of his study part-way through: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9470608/
What infuriates me is that health insurers in my jurisdiction are required to pay for "naturopathy." yet if I ask for the non-generic version of a medicine because the generics only have to deliver between 80% and 120% of what the non-generic does, different non-active ingredients, and different delivery / time release mechanisms...I get denied!
https://theoncologist.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10...
He even got caught modifying the procedures of his study part-way through: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9470608/
What infuriates me is that health insurers in my jurisdiction are required to pay for "naturopathy." yet if I ask for the non-generic version of a medicine because the generics only have to deliver between 80% and 120% of what the non-generic does, different non-active ingredients, and different delivery / time release mechanisms...I get denied!
Obligatory Mitchell and Webb: Homoeopathy Accident and Emergency Ward
https://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0
https://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0
Sooo good.
How much of other modern research has the same amount of issues, but doesn't have any motivated critics to uncover it?
The joke about homeopathy is that the guy that invented it knew that it didn’t work. He invented an heal plan that included fresh air and forrest walks and good food and exercise… the obvious today. But his patients wanted also medicine too … because you know that’s how people are apparently… so he invented homeopathy and the nice story to it. But people should primary do the other things.
It’s funny that only his fake medicine is so successful today.
> 128th ‘German Medical Assembly’ recently declared that: “the use of homeopathy … is not an option that is compatible with rational medicine, the requirement for the best possible treatment and an appropriate understanding of medical responsibility and medical ethics”.
I find this interesting because it was a German example a few years ago that demonstrated that homeopathy could be ethical in a specific case.
My mother in law (in Germany) had cancer, and eventually things reached the point where any further chemotherapy was pointless. So she went home. But they stocked her up with homeopathic "therapies" and she was quite diligent in taking them in the morning and thropugh the day. At first I was appalled, but then I realised that they gave her a sense of agency over her care. I think this had important psychological value over the beginning of the terminal phase of her life.
Now I can't believe this works for everyone -- I can't imagine I would waste my remaining time on such nonsense. But I don't think she had a good grasp of science (she always wanted one of her kids, or me, to go with her to the doctor and to explain things to her) and she never had any access to the Internet to look things up, so she was probably the ideal candidate to benefit from this nonsense. Drinking water out of tiny bottles isn't any different from praying at that stage of your life and that's considered acceptable and even unremarkable in certain circles.
PS: The Ukraine war made me think of her cancer -- it was a very unusual one and I have always believed it was due to some Chernobyl fallout.
I find this interesting because it was a German example a few years ago that demonstrated that homeopathy could be ethical in a specific case.
My mother in law (in Germany) had cancer, and eventually things reached the point where any further chemotherapy was pointless. So she went home. But they stocked her up with homeopathic "therapies" and she was quite diligent in taking them in the morning and thropugh the day. At first I was appalled, but then I realised that they gave her a sense of agency over her care. I think this had important psychological value over the beginning of the terminal phase of her life.
Now I can't believe this works for everyone -- I can't imagine I would waste my remaining time on such nonsense. But I don't think she had a good grasp of science (she always wanted one of her kids, or me, to go with her to the doctor and to explain things to her) and she never had any access to the Internet to look things up, so she was probably the ideal candidate to benefit from this nonsense. Drinking water out of tiny bottles isn't any different from praying at that stage of your life and that's considered acceptable and even unremarkable in certain circles.
PS: The Ukraine war made me think of her cancer -- it was a very unusual one and I have always believed it was due to some Chernobyl fallout.
Packaging on homeopathic products should have at least the same size warnings as tobacco products.
[deleted]
If homeopathy "theory" says that the water retains an "imprint" of other chemicals it encountered, clearly the tap water coming into your house is horribly contaminated with the fish pee, ozone (from UV purification treatment) and the pipes themselves.
I briefly considered selling a device that would "reverse" those consequences so the water from your tap would be homeopathically neutralized. But it just seemed unethical to take advantage of the poorly educated. It's bad enough there are people selling crystals, bibles, and magic charms -- selling a scam-device like this is just as unethical.
I briefly considered selling a device that would "reverse" those consequences so the water from your tap would be homeopathically neutralized. But it just seemed unethical to take advantage of the poorly educated. It's bad enough there are people selling crystals, bibles, and magic charms -- selling a scam-device like this is just as unethical.
> clearly the tap water coming into your house is horribly contaminated with the fish pee, ozone (from UV purification treatment) and the pipes themselves.
But then, the next concept is "like cures like". Why do you think people are so immune to fish piss?
But then, the next concept is "like cures like". Why do you think people are so immune to fish piss?
Well, we all know what else fish do in the water and I don't want my kids being born with gills.
Boy, I bet all those people in Flint, Michigan are glad they're immune to lead now.
Is it supposed to be my fault, or the governor's fault that they chose to live in Flint and not Palo Alto or the Upper East Side of Manhattan?
If you make bad choices, take responsibility and bear the consequences. That's the American Way. It ain't my problem, Jack!
If you make bad choices, take responsibility and bear the consequences. That's the American Way. It ain't my problem, Jack!
What will you say to people in Palo Alto who experience earthquakes, or Manhattanites who experience flooding?
Clearly they did not plan ahead.
If they really worry about these issues they can simply move or turn to the private sector. If the private sector can’t help them, that’s clearly due to the jackboot of unelected bureaucrats — congress needs to juice the supply side by cutting taxes on the job creators.
(BTW there’s an earthquake fault running right down Water St in lower Manhattan!)
If they really worry about these issues they can simply move or turn to the private sector. If the private sector can’t help them, that’s clearly due to the jackboot of unelected bureaucrats — congress needs to juice the supply side by cutting taxes on the job creators.
(BTW there’s an earthquake fault running right down Water St in lower Manhattan!)
If they get sick that's only because of the mercury in those vaccines.
You could probably still do it. It'd just have to be a distillation system that's not explicitly branded as a countertop water distiller but still describes its function and effects as such.
You see plenty of examples of this on the market already as-is in different sectors. A part for a Ford GT could cost 500 bucks where the same part for a Ford Fiesta could cost 50.
You see plenty of examples of this on the market already as-is in different sectors. A part for a Ford GT could cost 500 bucks where the same part for a Ford Fiesta could cost 50.
Just relabel some cheap white-label distillation units by putting them in a pretty metal housing, with "100% natural rubber" hoses (sell a subscription to hose replacements too!) then mark up 600%.
My problem is I am uncomfortable bilking the uneducated. There's enough of that going on already.
My problem is I am uncomfortable bilking the uneducated. There's enough of that going on already.
Good point but not such a great great exsmple of spurious cost differences. The Ford GT is a top race-spec car putting out 660 horsepower and capable of speeds around 220 mph, while the econocar Fiesta tops out at 112 HP and would be lucky to see 100mph with a tailwind.
Unless the part is something like a window-opener switch, yoi WANT that part to have all the extra engineering, higher spec materials, tighter-tolerance machining, and higher-level finishing that goes into making a high-performance machine actually perform at such high levels.
Moreover, even if the parts weren't fundamentally different despite occupying similar roles in the car, the mere difference in volume of production will dictate a far higher cost for the "same" part in a car made only in quantities of only a few hundred per year vs thousands per month ...
Unless the part is something like a window-opener switch, yoi WANT that part to have all the extra engineering, higher spec materials, tighter-tolerance machining, and higher-level finishing that goes into making a high-performance machine actually perform at such high levels.
Moreover, even if the parts weren't fundamentally different despite occupying similar roles in the car, the mere difference in volume of production will dictate a far higher cost for the "same" part in a car made only in quantities of only a few hundred per year vs thousands per month ...
I was referring to common elements like window switches, yes. I figured it would've gone without saying since the other components are binned based on manufacturing quality.
Yes, while some components are binned based on mfg quality, most key components of race or supercars are not merely differentially binned from the econocars. This is especially true for critical components like the drivetrain, suspension, chassis, etc.
Race and supercar components will have entirely different design, engineering, materials specification, manufacturing, testinng, assembly, and QA processes. Just a gear in the transmission, a piston, body panel, or even the bolts and fasteners will often be as alien from an econocar part as are jet engine parts (in fact, it is not uncommon for racecars to borrow tech from aviation & space technology).
A specific example that I work on is body panels and suspension components, which are just stamped steel for econo-cars, but for race and supercars are highly designed carbon fiber panels or components. They have literally zero in common except for ending up on the same general area of the car. Even when converting an econo-car to a low-level race spec, the new part will be entirely different. E.g., I've made parts for championship-winning pro rally and pro road racing cars. Every single component is stripped off the original frame, and then new parts are designed and built. E.g., when I build a carbon fiber hood, it will look a lot like the original, but in fact, not a single molecule or process will be the same as the original hood, but they might use an original hinge bracket to mount it to the frame.
Source: Worked on racecars, drove several championship wins, own high-performance composites design & fabrication biz that does work for race teams, among other customers.
Race and supercar components will have entirely different design, engineering, materials specification, manufacturing, testinng, assembly, and QA processes. Just a gear in the transmission, a piston, body panel, or even the bolts and fasteners will often be as alien from an econocar part as are jet engine parts (in fact, it is not uncommon for racecars to borrow tech from aviation & space technology).
A specific example that I work on is body panels and suspension components, which are just stamped steel for econo-cars, but for race and supercars are highly designed carbon fiber panels or components. They have literally zero in common except for ending up on the same general area of the car. Even when converting an econo-car to a low-level race spec, the new part will be entirely different. E.g., I've made parts for championship-winning pro rally and pro road racing cars. Every single component is stripped off the original frame, and then new parts are designed and built. E.g., when I build a carbon fiber hood, it will look a lot like the original, but in fact, not a single molecule or process will be the same as the original hood, but they might use an original hinge bracket to mount it to the frame.
Source: Worked on racecars, drove several championship wins, own high-performance composites design & fabrication biz that does work for race teams, among other customers.
"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory, and whilst its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it." --Tim Minchin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk
> But it just seemed unethical to take advantage of the poorly educated
I thought about doing the same during COVID when people were believing ludicrous claims about nanobots in the vaccine.
I was thinking that you could make a nice chunk of coin selling those old acam magnetic bracelets that 'deactivate the nanobots so that you can get the vaccine protection without the bots'
That way people would be helped by your scam product. And another way to look at it is that these people are going to be scammed by someone, it might as well be you, some with morals and not someone who is going to use that scamoney to move onto a bigger and bigger scam until they scam their way into the office of president.
I thought about doing the same during COVID when people were believing ludicrous claims about nanobots in the vaccine.
I was thinking that you could make a nice chunk of coin selling those old acam magnetic bracelets that 'deactivate the nanobots so that you can get the vaccine protection without the bots'
That way people would be helped by your scam product. And another way to look at it is that these people are going to be scammed by someone, it might as well be you, some with morals and not someone who is going to use that scamoney to move onto a bigger and bigger scam until they scam their way into the office of president.
> And another way to look at it is that these people are going to be scammed by someone, it might as well be you, some with morals
Hard to believe that anyone scamming others has acceptable moral scruples. Rather a case of "Yes, he killed a bunch of people but at least he was kind to his dog and kept to a strict vegetarian diet for moral reasons".
But I have to confess I had some pleasurable Schadenfreude thinking of this idea.
Hard to believe that anyone scamming others has acceptable moral scruples. Rather a case of "Yes, he killed a bunch of people but at least he was kind to his dog and kept to a strict vegetarian diet for moral reasons".
But I have to confess I had some pleasurable Schadenfreude thinking of this idea.
Other scammers might be even less scrupulous and sell stuff which is actively harmful.
It likely wouldn't work. All these treatments are rooted in personality cults, social pressure, and anecdotes.
Unless one of the big names in naturopathy gives your widget the thumbs up, the whackos won't buy it. In order to get them to give your widget the thumbs up, you'd have to give them a take.
Once you get 1-2 big names on board - now all the others have to decide whether to go with the flow (while not getting paid), try to shake you down, or go against the big names.
Reiki is a good example of this bullshit. You can get "certified" to a certain level, but the first question that people want to know is "who trained you", and they essentially follow a flowchart to see if your training came from the "good" reiki practitioners.
Unless one of the big names in naturopathy gives your widget the thumbs up, the whackos won't buy it. In order to get them to give your widget the thumbs up, you'd have to give them a take.
Once you get 1-2 big names on board - now all the others have to decide whether to go with the flow (while not getting paid), try to shake you down, or go against the big names.
Reiki is a good example of this bullshit. You can get "certified" to a certain level, but the first question that people want to know is "who trained you", and they essentially follow a flowchart to see if your training came from the "good" reiki practitioners.
Such devices are indeed already on the market. They are fancy water filters, nothing more, nothing less.
I should have guessed.
Of course the water picks up the imprint of the filters. My device would use magnets! Moving magnets so it doesn't bias the water.
Of course the water picks up the imprint of the filters. My device would use magnets! Moving magnets so it doesn't bias the water.
Do not ever try putting something like “magnet water purifier” in Google, then. Or, if your results make too much sense, just add some bullshit like “crystals”. You’d be disappointed to learn that about 54,017 charlatans beat you to the punch. Some of them even got some articles in something that looks like a peer-reviewed journal…
Sheesh, there is probably no hope for humanity.
I vote for the rationalist robots.
I vote for the rationalist robots.
> I briefly considered selling a device that would "reverse" those consequences so the water from your tap would be homeopathically neutralized. But it just seemed unethical to take advantage of the poorly educated.
You can rest assured that other people definitely did and indeed are still doing it. Ask me how I know.
(A couple of late-night rabbit holes, of course. From positive crystals you’re supposed to put in a water filter to magic pots that turn dead, sterilised water into the pure, living good stuff. The Internet can be very depressing).
You can rest assured that other people definitely did and indeed are still doing it. Ask me how I know.
(A couple of late-night rabbit holes, of course. From positive crystals you’re supposed to put in a water filter to magic pots that turn dead, sterilised water into the pure, living good stuff. The Internet can be very depressing).
> It's bad enough there are people selling ... bibles
I'd like to suggest that starting a thread based on "${specific_religion} is false" won't go well on HN.
Or was your point more about the selling of them? Sorry if I misunderstood.
I'd like to suggest that starting a thread based on "${specific_religion} is false" won't go well on HN.
Or was your point more about the selling of them? Sorry if I misunderstood.
To the point of OP, this is the same kind of belief, just older.
One believes in /something/ when there is no scientific evidence for it - against all odds.
One believes in /something/ when there is no scientific evidence for it - against all odds.
I'd like to substantively respond, but the GP comment's negative score confirms that HN isn't a good forum for this topic.
Homeopathy is BS, but understanding of edible foraging and plant chemistry is surprisingly helpful for better health and diet.
As an example onions and garlic do nothing to cure or address asthma. They do contain an active chemical that vaporized when they are cut which causes uncontrolled tear production. That same chemical agitates the throat in a way that arrests some amount of night coughing induced by asthma.
Another example is that wild lettuce is a drug like opium. Opium is a thistle, as are artichokes, and thistles are closely related to the lactuca genus that comprises lettuce. The drugs in both opium and lettuce are found in the plant latex containing two analgesics and a depressant. Lettuce drug, lactucarium, is not known to be habit forming and is minor though. It is just recommended as a topical treatment for minor skin injuries.
Another is that common fruits like pears, apples, and citrus contain drug like chemicals that alter the metabolism. This is super potent in grapefruit and has been known to cause fatal drug interactions in people on prescribed medicine. These chemicals are again magnified in commercial fruit juice since commercial fruit juice represents a high concentration of juice than found in actual fruit and without any fiber to slow digestion. If you find yourself mixing gold flakes with liquor and orange juice you might be inducing long term metal toxicity to your body even though gold is inert under normal dietary conditions.
As an example onions and garlic do nothing to cure or address asthma. They do contain an active chemical that vaporized when they are cut which causes uncontrolled tear production. That same chemical agitates the throat in a way that arrests some amount of night coughing induced by asthma.
Another example is that wild lettuce is a drug like opium. Opium is a thistle, as are artichokes, and thistles are closely related to the lactuca genus that comprises lettuce. The drugs in both opium and lettuce are found in the plant latex containing two analgesics and a depressant. Lettuce drug, lactucarium, is not known to be habit forming and is minor though. It is just recommended as a topical treatment for minor skin injuries.
Another is that common fruits like pears, apples, and citrus contain drug like chemicals that alter the metabolism. This is super potent in grapefruit and has been known to cause fatal drug interactions in people on prescribed medicine. These chemicals are again magnified in commercial fruit juice since commercial fruit juice represents a high concentration of juice than found in actual fruit and without any fiber to slow digestion. If you find yourself mixing gold flakes with liquor and orange juice you might be inducing long term metal toxicity to your body even though gold is inert under normal dietary conditions.
> Another is that common fruits like pears, apples, and citrus contain drug like chemicals that alter the metabolism. This is super potent in grapefruit and has been known to cause fatal drug interactions in people on prescribed medicine.
Grapefruit does not "alter the metabolism." Furanocoumarin binds to a receptor in the gut which causes some medications to pass through the gut much faster than normal which affects the level of the medicine in the blood.
That has nothing to do with "metabolism."
It also only affects some medications.
You might want to refrain from commenting on medicine until you have an actual science-based education in it.
Grapefruit does not "alter the metabolism." Furanocoumarin binds to a receptor in the gut which causes some medications to pass through the gut much faster than normal which affects the level of the medicine in the blood.
That has nothing to do with "metabolism."
It also only affects some medications.
You might want to refrain from commenting on medicine until you have an actual science-based education in it.
Grapefruit contains compounds that inhibit Cytochrome P450 and this will affect how various drugs will be metabolized. That is a very direct effect on metabolism and will affect a variety of drugs, but certainly not all of them.
> Grapefruit does not "alter the metabolism."
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_P450
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_P450
That's not the only mechanism (see other response also).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...
I've now known two people quite well, who either had cancer or their spouses did. Both of them went all-in for the woo-woo. One went to Mexico for it. Both are dead now.
If you make it illegal in the US, they'll just get it from another country. Because some people are just susceptible to this stuff.
If you make it illegal in the US, they'll just get it from another country. Because some people are just susceptible to this stuff.
Homeopathy is total BS, but the placebo effect is real. Is there a way that medical science can allow people to benefit from the latter without rewarding quacks who push the former?
The placebo effect and the biological basis for it is absolutely being seriously studied.
You might be interested in the work of Ted Kaptchuk and Kathryn Hall [1], for example. (Kaptchuk is a trained acupuncturist with a degree in Chinese medicine, but basically re-educated himself in western medicine, and is a highly regarded scientist.)
One of their insights is that placebo effect comes from neural modulation of pain receptors, and that the placebo effect has specific limitations. For example, the placebo effect cannot cure cancer or make a cold go away, but it can lessen pain and reduce inflammation through hormone signaling.
[1] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/node/39354
You might be interested in the work of Ted Kaptchuk and Kathryn Hall [1], for example. (Kaptchuk is a trained acupuncturist with a degree in Chinese medicine, but basically re-educated himself in western medicine, and is a highly regarded scientist.)
One of their insights is that placebo effect comes from neural modulation of pain receptors, and that the placebo effect has specific limitations. For example, the placebo effect cannot cure cancer or make a cold go away, but it can lessen pain and reduce inflammation through hormone signaling.
[1] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/node/39354
I’ve never understood why this isn’t explored more.
It’s like, at some point we discovered the placebo effect, which has got to have been a pretty shocking result, right? I just can’t fathom that the entire scientific community just went “ah, hm, right, placebo. I see. I guess we need to do our random-controlled-trials with a placebo control group now”. Wait, that’s it? Nobody went “wtf woa we can cure a % of people with empty pills, how does that work and how can we up the %?”
I just don’t get it, it seems to me that the existence of the placebo effect is hard evidence that there’s a mind-body connection and we can cure body stuff with mind stuff (and vice versa, probably), so why does nearly all of that remain firmly in alternative woo-woo land?
It’s like, at some point we discovered the placebo effect, which has got to have been a pretty shocking result, right? I just can’t fathom that the entire scientific community just went “ah, hm, right, placebo. I see. I guess we need to do our random-controlled-trials with a placebo control group now”. Wait, that’s it? Nobody went “wtf woa we can cure a % of people with empty pills, how does that work and how can we up the %?”
I just don’t get it, it seems to me that the existence of the placebo effect is hard evidence that there’s a mind-body connection and we can cure body stuff with mind stuff (and vice versa, probably), so why does nearly all of that remain firmly in alternative woo-woo land?
Because prescribing a placebo while saying it's a medicine involves lying to the patient, which is controversial when ethical standards usually involve informed consent and a belief in patient autonomy.
> I just can’t fathom that the entire scientific community just went “ah, hm, right, placebo. I see. I guess we need to do our random-controlled-trials with a placebo control group now”. Wait, that’s it?
see that's because they didn't go like that - there's even an section on the ethics of using them in medical practice on the wikipedia article for placebo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#In_medical_practice
Plus it's a pretty important topic of discussion when it comes to pain management/opiod crisis. Unsurprisingly, a large group of professionals did not, in fact, randomly decide to ignore a very large and obvious question in the field
> I just can’t fathom that the entire scientific community just went “ah, hm, right, placebo. I see. I guess we need to do our random-controlled-trials with a placebo control group now”. Wait, that’s it?
see that's because they didn't go like that - there's even an section on the ethics of using them in medical practice on the wikipedia article for placebo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#In_medical_practice
Plus it's a pretty important topic of discussion when it comes to pain management/opiod crisis. Unsurprisingly, a large group of professionals did not, in fact, randomly decide to ignore a very large and obvious question in the field
You’re talking about the ethics of giving patients placebo medicine. That’s not what I mean.
I mean that I don’t understand why there isn’t more research into how the placebo effect works and whether there’s ways to make it work better. Reading other sections of the wikipedia article you linked, it seems to me that researchers have been stuck at “is the placebo effect even real?” for decades and few try to figure out how it works and why, and whether it can somehow be amplified. The answers to such questions might well influence the ethics discussion but “we really don’t get how it works so better not prescribe placebos” is a very unsatisfying stance to me.
I mean that I don’t understand why there isn’t more research into how the placebo effect works and whether there’s ways to make it work better. Reading other sections of the wikipedia article you linked, it seems to me that researchers have been stuck at “is the placebo effect even real?” for decades and few try to figure out how it works and why, and whether it can somehow be amplified. The answers to such questions might well influence the ethics discussion but “we really don’t get how it works so better not prescribe placebos” is a very unsatisfying stance to me.
prescribe distilled water.
Right, but how to do this while preserving the placebo effect? If the patient knows it’s “just” water, the effect is lost. Some sort of deliberate deception seems to be necessary, which raises ethical problems.
I've found placebos work really well on me even when I know they're placebos.
Yeah, homeopathy works due to the placebo effect and further boosted by people that subscribe to the anti-allopathic or Western medicine religion. I think it should be studied similar to how people go to Godmen for healing and report success stories - placebo effect + religious faith / belief.
It’s comforting to think of medical professionals as competent and trustworthy, but it’s simply not universally true. Medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499956/
Homeopathy is basically mistake proof compared to real medicine, including a doctor visit. For a sufficiently minor ailment, avoiding risk of a potentially lethal mistake is just safer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499956/
Homeopathy is basically mistake proof compared to real medicine, including a doctor visit. For a sufficiently minor ailment, avoiding risk of a potentially lethal mistake is just safer.
I had horrible pollen allergies.
My mother took me to a homeopath (in addition to regular doctors)
She prescribed some tablets / pills to dissolve under the tunge,
that had some pollen in them.
It worked pretty well for allergies but not the best for teeth. Just building up resistance I would think.
I know you can get similar treatment now from regular doctors.
So my one and only interaction was fairly successful.
I have never sought one out for anything else.
It worked pretty well for allergies but not the best for teeth. Just building up resistance I would think.
I know you can get similar treatment now from regular doctors.
So my one and only interaction was fairly successful.
I have never sought one out for anything else.
Are you sure it was not a naturopath? Because the fundamental "principle" behind homeopathy is exponential dilution.
An homeopathic pollen formulation would start with 1 mg of pollen in a litter of water, a milliliter of that solution would be diluted in a liter of water and this process would be repeated a few time. In the final solution, it would be impossible to detect even a trace of the original pollen.
An homeopathic pollen formulation would start with 1 mg of pollen in a litter of water, a milliliter of that solution would be diluted in a liter of water and this process would be repeated a few time. In the final solution, it would be impossible to detect even a trace of the original pollen.
I know a few people that think the term "homeopath" includes what we're calling "naturopath".
I'm not really sure how this confusion arose, but I don't like it. It muddies the waters (heh) in a few ways.
I'm not really sure how this confusion arose, but I don't like it. It muddies the waters (heh) in a few ways.
> I had horrible pollen allergies. My mother took me to a homeopath (in addition to regular doctors) She prescribed some tablets / pills to dissolve under the tunge, that had some pollen in them.
You don't know that it worked. This is an example of the regression fallacy.[1] This is why we have controlled trials.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy
You don't know that it worked. This is an example of the regression fallacy.[1] This is why we have controlled trials.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy
Well, it's interesting - based on your description, the medication you took is not homeopathic:
> Homeopathic preparations are termed remedies and are made using homeopathic dilution. In this process, the selected substance is repeatedly diluted until the final product is chemically indistinguishable from the diluent.
If in a preparation there is a measurable quantity of the active ingredient, then it's not an homeopathic preparation.
> Homeopathic preparations are termed remedies and are made using homeopathic dilution. In this process, the selected substance is repeatedly diluted until the final product is chemically indistinguishable from the diluent.
If in a preparation there is a measurable quantity of the active ingredient, then it's not an homeopathic preparation.
Indeed, that sounds more like a “naturopath” which can be both more effective and more dangerous than homeopathy because their remedies actually contain active ingredients (although in somewhat random and nonstandardized quantities).
One of the problems with homeopathy is that many practitioners don’t understand what homeopathy actually means. It’s essentially synonymous with “naturopathy” for them.
That's not the entirety of homeopathy, just the most commonly shat on ridiculous homeopathic practice
> That's not the entirety of homeopathy, just the most commonly shat on ridiculous homeopathic practice
Uugh. It's really hard to productively discuss a topic when people have different definitions for the terms being used.
Uugh. It's really hard to productively discuss a topic when people have different definitions for the terms being used.
Weren't zinc lozenges a homeopathic remedy?
I'm a staunch supporter of homeopathic remedies. I drink more than 2 liters of homeopathic solution per day. /s
I still don't understand why these can be sold in American pharmacies.
They're even covered by some insurance plans.
A friend of mine is an orthopedic surgeon, and they explained to me that for mild problems, which would normally heal on their own, it's cheaper to cover a placebo rather than real medication.
A friend of mine is an orthopedic surgeon, and they explained to me that for mild problems, which would normally heal on their own, it's cheaper to cover a placebo rather than real medication.
While I hear this argumentation a lot, I still struggle with this:
If you have "mild problems, which would normally heal on their own", buying no medication at all would be even cheaper.
And from an ethical point of view, the idea of financing a whole (homeopathic) industry that uses your money to produce fake science, even with a single cent, should make one shudder, shouldn't it?
If you have "mild problems, which would normally heal on their own", buying no medication at all would be even cheaper.
And from an ethical point of view, the idea of financing a whole (homeopathic) industry that uses your money to produce fake science, even with a single cent, should make one shudder, shouldn't it?
To those who downvoted: Would you dare to explain your disagreement?
> If you have "mild problems, which would normally heal on their own", buying no medication at all would be even cheaper.
But placebos actually outperform no intervention.
But placebos actually outperform no intervention.
Okay, fair point.
But then, why prescribe the most expensive placebos where you co-finance societal harmful behavior, rather than just prescribing the "harmless" placebos that are not homeopathy, which are usually even cheaper and don't have any ideological overhead?
But then, why prescribe the most expensive placebos where you co-finance societal harmful behavior, rather than just prescribing the "harmless" placebos that are not homeopathy, which are usually even cheaper and don't have any ideological overhead?
I'm not aware of any research along these lines, but I suspect that all placebos are not equally effective.
It's a psychological effect, so things like price or flavor or packaging likely affect its strength.
It's a psychological effect, so things like price or flavor or packaging likely affect its strength.
Yea there is research into it, and you're correct
Color matters: placebo colored pills work better than white pills.
Delivery mechanism matters: placebo injections work better than pills.
Idk about price, packaging, or flavor specifically. But delivery mechanism, color, number of pills, etc I remember from a study.
Color matters: placebo colored pills work better than white pills.
Delivery mechanism matters: placebo injections work better than pills.
Idk about price, packaging, or flavor specifically. But delivery mechanism, color, number of pills, etc I remember from a study.
The 2008 Ignobel Prize in Medicine was awarded for a paper that showed that higher-priced placebos are more effective than lower-priced placebos [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners...
I think it comes from our animistic roots. Magic that calls for the sacrifice of a goat is stronger than magic that calls for the sacrifice of a flower because the former requires more dedication from the caster. It would be the same with money.
There is a lot of over-the-counter and even some prescription medicine that don't do much at all for what people take them for, and homeopathy is cheaper and less harmful for the same placebo effect. Cold medicine in particular is known for its dubious efficiency.
No medication is even cheaper, but the placebo effect works, so if people were to take something, might as well have them take something cheap and harmless. In my opinion, it doesn't justify supporting homeopathy, but health insurances may see it differently.
Placebos are an interesting ethical issue. Doctors are not supposed to deceive you, they are people you trust with your life and very personal issues and they are therefore held to very high standards. But even if it is for your own good, the placebo effect is based on deception, so is it ethical for a doctor to give you a placebo? And is fake science that still help people ethical? The consensus seems to be "no" for both and I tend to agree, but I still think it is worth debating.
No medication is even cheaper, but the placebo effect works, so if people were to take something, might as well have them take something cheap and harmless. In my opinion, it doesn't justify supporting homeopathy, but health insurances may see it differently.
Placebos are an interesting ethical issue. Doctors are not supposed to deceive you, they are people you trust with your life and very personal issues and they are therefore held to very high standards. But even if it is for your own good, the placebo effect is based on deception, so is it ethical for a doctor to give you a placebo? And is fake science that still help people ethical? The consensus seems to be "no" for both and I tend to agree, but I still think it is worth debating.
Here we have an article that claims that even when people are told they are getting a placebo, they still felt better after taking it.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-kn...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-kn...
> If you have "mild problems, which would normally heal on their own", buying no medication at all would be even cheaper.
American culture loathes the idea of not treating a disease. Problems are expected to be dealt with, even if it harms society (see overprescribing antibiotics or opioids).
When confronted with people that don't understand the impacts of medicine, it's easier for an insurance company to give them fake medication than nothing at all.
American culture loathes the idea of not treating a disease. Problems are expected to be dealt with, even if it harms society (see overprescribing antibiotics or opioids).
When confronted with people that don't understand the impacts of medicine, it's easier for an insurance company to give them fake medication than nothing at all.
Indulging without argument a patient's harmless fantasies economizes on physician time, and that is surely the most precious resource.
This is basically how TCM came to be!
The Chinese Communist Party had billions being raised out of incredible poverty and that populace started demanding medical care. There was no possible way to supply enough clinics, doctors, nurses, etc - and not just because Mao whipped the Red Guard into an anti-intellectual froth than then slaughtered much of China's academic/scientific community.
So Mao waved his hands and invented TCM, which basically said "oh yeah, most of these traditional Chinese medicines work. We did some research and figured out which ones and how to apply them!"
Hilariously people argue TCM doesn't work not because it's complete bullshit, but because it's a modified, corrupted version of actual Chinese medicine...
The Chinese Communist Party had billions being raised out of incredible poverty and that populace started demanding medical care. There was no possible way to supply enough clinics, doctors, nurses, etc - and not just because Mao whipped the Red Guard into an anti-intellectual froth than then slaughtered much of China's academic/scientific community.
So Mao waved his hands and invented TCM, which basically said "oh yeah, most of these traditional Chinese medicines work. We did some research and figured out which ones and how to apply them!"
Hilariously people argue TCM doesn't work not because it's complete bullshit, but because it's a modified, corrupted version of actual Chinese medicine...
Sometimes I get into conversations with TCM advocates.
"If you get into a car accident in China," I say, "an ambulance will take you to a hospital where they will treat you with western medicine. Why do you think that is?"
"If you get into a car accident in China," I say, "an ambulance will take you to a hospital where they will treat you with western medicine. Why do you think that is?"
It’s even cheaper to offer nothing. Some humans are just quite something.
In France they were funded by the social security up to 15%, but luckily this stopped in 2021. I had some as a kid and my mom is still a strong "believer" in them. I don't see any harm in selling them IF and only if they don't prevent people from taking other "real" treatments. But other than this it's just placebo.
> and only if they don't prevent people from taking other "real" treatments
This is the dominant harm, yeah. As we know from infosec, few things are more dangerous than a false sense of security, and that's exactly what ineffective drugs provide.
This is the dominant harm, yeah. As we know from infosec, few things are more dangerous than a false sense of security, and that's exactly what ineffective drugs provide.
Most of homeopathy usages target little aches and whatnots that require no treatment (beyond patience), so I guess it could also act as a buffer against overmedication.
Because every bottle is clearly labeled “The FDA has not evaluated this for treating any condition”. There are a great many products that the FDA hasn’t evaluated that are still sold, why should these be any different?
It's the other way around, the 'FDA has not evaluated' text is indicating that these products are different and part of a special loophole created just for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_...
The reason that these get to make health claims and stuff without regulation, and get special treatment, is lobbying resulting in that act. Otherwise they would have been regulated.
The reason that these get to make health claims and stuff without regulation, and get special treatment, is lobbying resulting in that act. Otherwise they would have been regulated.
But why are businesses like CVS hawking snake oil while also having trained pharmacists on staff.
It makes money
Most pharmacies used to sell tobacco products (they only started to do so after a couple of states started banning the practice.) Walgreens still does (in states where it isn't banned from doing so).
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/walgreens-tes...
> "The safety of our patients is very important, but we also have to do what our customers are requiring us to do," Walgreens CEO Stefano Pessina told the WSJ. "We see that when we don’t sell tobacco, we have a lot of [negative] reactions."
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/walgreens-tes...
> "The safety of our patients is very important, but we also have to do what our customers are requiring us to do," Walgreens CEO Stefano Pessina told the WSJ. "We see that when we don’t sell tobacco, we have a lot of [negative] reactions."
Because a lot of those bottles also make claims that are in violation of the FDA rules. The label is not sufficient.
They need to avoid making claims that they can treat or diagnose some condition. They do their best to hint at it without crossing the line, and frequently blatantly do cross it. The FDA does not have anywhere near the manpower to enforce it. And when they do finally get around to it, the brand vanishes, and a new one appears with exactly the same product lineup.
The sector has long lost any entitlement to benefit of the doubt. They are knowingly making illegal claims and using a disclaimer as a fig leaf even though everything else on the package contradicts it.
They need to avoid making claims that they can treat or diagnose some condition. They do their best to hint at it without crossing the line, and frequently blatantly do cross it. The FDA does not have anywhere near the manpower to enforce it. And when they do finally get around to it, the brand vanishes, and a new one appears with exactly the same product lineup.
The sector has long lost any entitlement to benefit of the doubt. They are knowingly making illegal claims and using a disclaimer as a fig leaf even though everything else on the package contradicts it.
It's not illegal and its not in violation of FDA rules. That disclaimer text is from a specific law that gives them exemption from those rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_...
It's not a manpower issue, it's not a legal issue. It's not against the law because they wrote the law. There is no line they try to avoid crossing because that line was erased by lobbyists in 1994.
It's not a manpower issue, it's not a legal issue. It's not against the law because they wrote the law. There is no line they try to avoid crossing because that line was erased by lobbyists in 1994.
As I said, it's not the disclaimer. It's all of the other text that contradicts it.
Because they are not labeled as medical products. It is a loophole.
What should not be allowed to sold in pharmacy? Or should that even be asked. I think this is pretty relevant question. Should pharmacies have some extra regulation that limits them from selling anything but exactly approved products? Or specific models of such? Like only certain toothbrushes?
Well, the placebo effect is real so the products do actually work. Weird line, sure, but still.
THE PLACEBO EFFECT:
It works even when you know it's a placebo.
It works even when you know it's a placebo.
This is an incorrect summary of the placebo effect. The placebo effect does require the patient to either believe it is effective, or at least not knowing clearly it is ineffective.
This is why clinical studies don't tell neither group (neither the treated group nor the control group) who is in which group, to not spoil the results.
And also, this is why homeopathy puts so much effort into spreading the belief they are effective despite all odds, up to the point of trying to convince people to abandon basic scientific principles.
This is why clinical studies don't tell neither group (neither the treated group nor the control group) who is in which group, to not spoil the results.
And also, this is why homeopathy puts so much effort into spreading the belief they are effective despite all odds, up to the point of trying to convince people to abandon basic scientific principles.
Contrast this with advertisement, which actually does work even when people know that it is ads, and which still does work on people how know how ads work.
Also, contrast this with psychotherapy, which usually does work even better if the patient understands how it works, because it enables them to become an active and more effective part of the therapy.
Also, contrast this with psychotherapy, which usually does work even better if the patient understands how it works, because it enables them to become an active and more effective part of the therapy.
studies don't tell you about being on a placebo because of blinding, not because it would stop the placebo from working.
GP is actually correct according to Wikipedia[0] (for what that's worth): There seems to be evidence that "open-label placebos"—i.e. "where the patient is fully aware that the treatment is inert"—still have positive effects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Effects
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Effects
They couldn’t. But then a law called the DSHEA was passed that changed all the rules.
Aren’t they normally sold as supplements’ not medicines, to circumvent regulations?
They are powerful placebos, so the believers have become permanently duped.
Placebos work even if users know it's a placebo. I don't for a second believe in any of homeopathy claims, but I still buy and use it, because placebo works. Especially so when price and all other medicine-looking rituals around it are maintained.
It's considered a dietary supplement, which is governed by the dietary supplement health enforcement act, which in turn classifies dietary supplements as a food product.
Very much false.
1. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, homeopathic products are subject to the same requirements related to approval, adulteration and misbranding as other drug products. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/homeopathic...
2. Homeopathic products are "classified as either over-the-counter (OTC) or prescription medicines." https://www.chpa.org/about-consumer-healthcare/faqs/faqs-abo...
1. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, homeopathic products are subject to the same requirements related to approval, adulteration and misbranding as other drug products. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/homeopathic...
2. Homeopathic products are "classified as either over-the-counter (OTC) or prescription medicines." https://www.chpa.org/about-consumer-healthcare/faqs/faqs-abo...
from that same link:
> There are no FDA-approved products labeled as homeopathic; this means that any product labeled as homeopathic is being marketed in the U.S. without FDA evaluation for safety or effectiveness.
> There are no FDA-approved products labeled as homeopathic; this means that any product labeled as homeopathic is being marketed in the U.S. without FDA evaluation for safety or effectiveness.
That's beside the point of the comment I replied to, which falsely said homeopathic products were classified as dietary supplements.
I for one am glad they they sell clean water in pharmacies, and support its continued sale!
People want to buy them and we live in a free country.
Unless we want to make people accountable for running their own sophisticated clinical studies for every single product we buy, we should probably have some rules in place around false claims and false advertising.
We have those rules about how homeopathic "medicine" can be labeled.
At the end of the day, people are allowed to buy dumb shit. 50% of my local CVS is make-up, which is way more egregious than echinacea root extract.
At the end of the day, people are allowed to buy dumb shit. 50% of my local CVS is make-up, which is way more egregious than echinacea root extract.
Yes but it’s clearly not good enough
Maybe we should also have some rules around false claims and false advertising around food in general. I think this causes more damage than homeopathic stuff ever can do.
I might be downvoted for this, but I tend to have a kind of libertarian take on this. I absolutely do not believe in homeopathy beyond placebo effects, and I understand the harm they do by opportunity costs in pursuing other treatments.
But at the end of the day I feel like all medications should basically be handled like homeopathy products. They should be available to anyone, barring some kind of competency ruling or disagreement by the pharmacy over what they want to sell to whom, and the FDA should basically ensure that they are what they say they are on the label.
I'm glad there's skeptics out there calling BS on homeopathy but where I diverge from them is in somehow preventing it from being available. It's water, it's labeled accurately, so let people do what they're going to do. If they weren't doing this I doubt they'd be doing something more "mainstream" anyway, or complying with it. They might even be doing something even more actively harmful.
I guess I see it as a slippery slope from banning homeopathy to something much murkier where reasonable experts disagree. Real medical science can get very grey really fast and I'm not sure I trust regulatory authority figures to always make the best decisions about what to do. Better to leave it to the consumer and whichever provider they trust most.
Demand product purity, prevent health claims on the label, whatever, but I think my question is "why aren't more medications sold in American pharmacies?"
But at the end of the day I feel like all medications should basically be handled like homeopathy products. They should be available to anyone, barring some kind of competency ruling or disagreement by the pharmacy over what they want to sell to whom, and the FDA should basically ensure that they are what they say they are on the label.
I'm glad there's skeptics out there calling BS on homeopathy but where I diverge from them is in somehow preventing it from being available. It's water, it's labeled accurately, so let people do what they're going to do. If they weren't doing this I doubt they'd be doing something more "mainstream" anyway, or complying with it. They might even be doing something even more actively harmful.
I guess I see it as a slippery slope from banning homeopathy to something much murkier where reasonable experts disagree. Real medical science can get very grey really fast and I'm not sure I trust regulatory authority figures to always make the best decisions about what to do. Better to leave it to the consumer and whichever provider they trust most.
Demand product purity, prevent health claims on the label, whatever, but I think my question is "why aren't more medications sold in American pharmacies?"
its not about banning availability, its about making them required to prove the health claims theyre making. If you didn't have any requirements to prove your drug worked before selling it, youd take away a pretty huge market incentive to make drugs that work (health is about as far from a perfect full information free market as you can get -- homeopathy doesn't work at all and those companies are making plenty of money). These regulations also force research into and labeling of side effects, and skimping on that led to an opiod crisis.
Honestly don't really see the economic or societal argument for deregulating medicine. If you want a system where to get an fda stamp you have to prove it works but can sell whatever otherwise with no consequences until you kill someone or destroy their gallbladders (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2024/05/fda-determines-that-t...) - well that's what we already have now so given it hasn't changed in decades, even with recent attempts to do so after all the strip mall stem cell clinics and GRAS issues and all, I don't think your opinion is that out of the mainstream.
And in terms of why aren't more sold in pharmacies - no clue what you're talking about there lol. Have you not seen the A-Z supplement whatever aisles full of all this unregulated crap? You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it.
Honestly don't really see the economic or societal argument for deregulating medicine. If you want a system where to get an fda stamp you have to prove it works but can sell whatever otherwise with no consequences until you kill someone or destroy their gallbladders (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2024/05/fda-determines-that-t...) - well that's what we already have now so given it hasn't changed in decades, even with recent attempts to do so after all the strip mall stem cell clinics and GRAS issues and all, I don't think your opinion is that out of the mainstream.
And in terms of why aren't more sold in pharmacies - no clue what you're talking about there lol. Have you not seen the A-Z supplement whatever aisles full of all this unregulated crap? You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it.
> You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it.
Over the counter? No, you can't. You can buy a lot of stuff that doesn't work over the counter. But, for example, if I want a decongestant that actually works (pseudoephedrine HCl), I have to go to the pharmacy and show them my driver's license and make a record of the purchase because the government is afraid I might start a meth lab.
And that doesn't even get into all the market failures with prescription drugs. What if I have the same bacterial infection for the umpteenth time and I know that antibiotic X will fix it? Can I just walk into the drugstore and get a course of antibiotic X? Of course not. (At least, not in the US. But in Mexico, I can.)
Even if the argument is that I might be misdiagosing my symptoms (which, if it's the umpteenth time I've had the same thing, is not a very good argument), why isn't there a machine in the drugstore that can check my diagnosis? It's already been shown that expert systems can outperform human doctors for many diagnostic tasks. In a functioning market for health care, we would see that technology in wide use. But we don't, because we don't have a functioning market for health care.
Over the counter? No, you can't. You can buy a lot of stuff that doesn't work over the counter. But, for example, if I want a decongestant that actually works (pseudoephedrine HCl), I have to go to the pharmacy and show them my driver's license and make a record of the purchase because the government is afraid I might start a meth lab.
And that doesn't even get into all the market failures with prescription drugs. What if I have the same bacterial infection for the umpteenth time and I know that antibiotic X will fix it? Can I just walk into the drugstore and get a course of antibiotic X? Of course not. (At least, not in the US. But in Mexico, I can.)
Even if the argument is that I might be misdiagosing my symptoms (which, if it's the umpteenth time I've had the same thing, is not a very good argument), why isn't there a machine in the drugstore that can check my diagnosis? It's already been shown that expert systems can outperform human doctors for many diagnostic tasks. In a functioning market for health care, we would see that technology in wide use. But we don't, because we don't have a functioning market for health care.
pseudoephedrine - you can't buy that because the DEA has a problem with it lol.
and you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.
and you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.
> pseudoephedrine - you can't buy that because the DEA has a problem with it lol
Ok. (Though there is still the question of whether it actualy makes sense for the DEA to care.) How about commonly used antibiotics?
> you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.
Antibiotics? Please enlighten me.
Ok. (Though there is still the question of whether it actualy makes sense for the DEA to care.) How about commonly used antibiotics?
> you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.
Antibiotics? Please enlighten me.
for cell culture lol it's not hard to find them, even though arguably it should be because of resistance. Also this isn't advice to take them - they aren't regulated and so you shouldn't trust them lol they're for research use only for a reason
> this isn't advice to take them - they aren't regulated and so you shouldn't trust them lol they're for research use only for a reason
In other words, no, I can't buy anything I want unless the DEA has a problem with it. I can buy stuff that doesn't work or that I can't trust, but I can't buy antibiotics (or many other things I might want) that I can trust. Which of course concedes my point.
In other words, no, I can't buy anything I want unless the DEA has a problem with it. I can buy stuff that doesn't work or that I can't trust, but I can't buy antibiotics (or many other things I might want) that I can trust. Which of course concedes my point.
You don't have a right to buy stuff that works or that you can trust, the point is that for noncontrolled nonpatented substances, nobody can stop you from buying or synthesizing active ingredients for your own use in the US, even if logically you shouldn't be trusted to have the competence to not hurt yourself, or if frankly there should be way way more regulation.
You keep bringing up antibiotics but it's the category of drugs with the most widespread use (animal agriculture) with one of the strongest cases for being drastically under-regulated - they stop working if things become resistent to them and we spray them everywhere like candy. Also you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or burden for non-prescription drugs, which is particularly funny after the whole fiasco with wegovy off label prescriptions before the active ingredient was approved for obesity/launched for obesity. These are not real barriers, even when they probably should be.
You keep bringing up antibiotics but it's the category of drugs with the most widespread use (animal agriculture) with one of the strongest cases for being drastically under-regulated - they stop working if things become resistent to them and we spray them everywhere like candy. Also you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or burden for non-prescription drugs, which is particularly funny after the whole fiasco with wegovy off label prescriptions before the active ingredient was approved for obesity/launched for obesity. These are not real barriers, even when they probably should be.
> it's the category of drugs with the most widespread use (animal agriculture) with one of the strongest cases for being drastically under-regulated
To call this area "under-regulated" is not accurate: the whole food production chain in the US, with all of its dysfunctionality, is a product of decades of regulation and government interference and mismanagement. The best way to stop antibiotic use with animals is for people to stop eating meat and other products from those animals, and if anything is going to facilitate that, it's going to be the market, which is already providing plenty of products in grocery stores that are from animals raised with no antibiotics, and will provide more the more people choose to buy them, as I do.
To call this area "under-regulated" is not accurate: the whole food production chain in the US, with all of its dysfunctionality, is a product of decades of regulation and government interference and mismanagement. The best way to stop antibiotic use with animals is for people to stop eating meat and other products from those animals, and if anything is going to facilitate that, it's going to be the market, which is already providing plenty of products in grocery stores that are from animals raised with no antibiotics, and will provide more the more people choose to buy them, as I do.
> You don't have a right to buy stuff that works or that you can trust
We're not talking about rights here. You claimed, and I quote, "You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it." I am simply pointing out that that is not true. Whether it should be true as a matter of right is irrelevant to that factual question.
> you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or burden for non-prescription drugs
Um, no, I said no such thing. Obviously having to get a prescription is not a barrier or burden for non prescription drugs. But, as you yourself have pointed out, a huge number of those non-prescription drugs, for which there is no barrier or burden, don't work. And, as you have also pointed out, routing around things like prescriptions to get, for example, antibiotics means you can't trust the product. So there are barriers and burdens in the way of getting things that do work and can be trusted. Which was my point, and which contradicts your original claim that I responded to.
The question of whether there should be all these barriers and burdens in the way of buying things that work and can be trusted is a separate question. Your argument for why there should appears to be that without such barriers more harm would be done. Of course there will always be people who make stupid choices, and giving people more freedom by removing barriers and burdens will increase that. But you are not recognizing the other side of the barriers and burdens, which is that they prevent people from making good choices, choices that could save their lives. For example, look up the harm done in preventable deaths by the FDA's slowness in permitting beta blockers.
The post you responded to that advocated a libertarian approach was saying, in effect, that, on net, the harm done by regulation is greater than the harm done by individual people making bad choices in the absence of regulation. I happen to agree. You apparently do not. But I do not see that you have given any reason to believe that the opposite is true. I certainly don't see anything in what you've posted that makes the opposite claim the slam dunk that you appear to think it is.
We're not talking about rights here. You claimed, and I quote, "You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it." I am simply pointing out that that is not true. Whether it should be true as a matter of right is irrelevant to that factual question.
> you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or burden for non-prescription drugs
Um, no, I said no such thing. Obviously having to get a prescription is not a barrier or burden for non prescription drugs. But, as you yourself have pointed out, a huge number of those non-prescription drugs, for which there is no barrier or burden, don't work. And, as you have also pointed out, routing around things like prescriptions to get, for example, antibiotics means you can't trust the product. So there are barriers and burdens in the way of getting things that do work and can be trusted. Which was my point, and which contradicts your original claim that I responded to.
The question of whether there should be all these barriers and burdens in the way of buying things that work and can be trusted is a separate question. Your argument for why there should appears to be that without such barriers more harm would be done. Of course there will always be people who make stupid choices, and giving people more freedom by removing barriers and burdens will increase that. But you are not recognizing the other side of the barriers and burdens, which is that they prevent people from making good choices, choices that could save their lives. For example, look up the harm done in preventable deaths by the FDA's slowness in permitting beta blockers.
The post you responded to that advocated a libertarian approach was saying, in effect, that, on net, the harm done by regulation is greater than the harm done by individual people making bad choices in the absence of regulation. I happen to agree. You apparently do not. But I do not see that you have given any reason to believe that the opposite is true. I certainly don't see anything in what you've posted that makes the opposite claim the slam dunk that you appear to think it is.
When i said buy whatever you want, i was referring to the ingredient in the drug, which you can buy or make with no issues.
And when i say the prescription not being a barrier, i'm not talking about not needing a prescription to get research grade antibiotics. I'm talking about how needing a prescription to get a non-controlled drug is literally a non-issue because of rampant off label prescribing and online prescription mills.
And when i say the prescription not being a barrier, i'm not talking about not needing a prescription to get research grade antibiotics. I'm talking about how needing a prescription to get a non-controlled drug is literally a non-issue because of rampant off label prescribing and online prescription mills.
At this point your use of the Humpty Dumpty principle makes further discussion highly unlikely to be fruitful.
If the homeopathic remedies don't harm anyone (I know that some have, this comment only references the remedies that don't), what is the problem with them being sold and used?
Many cold medicines have side effects, some are even abused recreationaly. Given that human bodies tend to recover with or without cold medicine (and given the shaky legs that Phenylephrine stands on), what is the issue with people using "fake medicine"?
Homeopathic remedies cannot be abused recreationaly. They aren't precursors to meth. They are better in every way (except the don't work better than a placebo). But, if all a patient needs is a placebo (people recover from the common cold just fine without medicine), homeopathic remedies are perfect.
Remember the hippocrattic oath: First of all, do no harm. Safe, well prepared homeopathic remedies shouldn't do harm. Many cold medicines do.
Many cold medicines have side effects, some are even abused recreationaly. Given that human bodies tend to recover with or without cold medicine (and given the shaky legs that Phenylephrine stands on), what is the issue with people using "fake medicine"?
Homeopathic remedies cannot be abused recreationaly. They aren't precursors to meth. They are better in every way (except the don't work better than a placebo). But, if all a patient needs is a placebo (people recover from the common cold just fine without medicine), homeopathic remedies are perfect.
Remember the hippocrattic oath: First of all, do no harm. Safe, well prepared homeopathic remedies shouldn't do harm. Many cold medicines do.
Why not just prescribe a crystal and some essential oils instead? Maybe have them sacrifice a chicken tomorrow evening at dusk? Actually, if they send me $400 in Bitcoin I will simply cure them with the power of prayer. Nobody is making meth off of my well wishes either.
> Actually, if they send me $400 in Bitcoin I will simply cure them with the power of prayer.
Sounds like a business plan
Sounds like a business plan
Why a prescription? If the patient can get a placebo fix without a prescription, isn't that better?
Of course having a "healer" present with a "prescription" may make people feel better. So maybe prescribing crystals is better than pharmacy homeopathic remedies.
However, none of this needs to cost $400. Given that these are all placebos, they should cheap and safe.
Of course having a "healer" present with a "prescription" may make people feel better. So maybe prescribing crystals is better than pharmacy homeopathic remedies.
However, none of this needs to cost $400. Given that these are all placebos, they should cheap and safe.
Nah, if they need to believe in homeopathic cure-alls it most definitely needs to cost $400. Compared to a Medbed, I'm offering a total bargain.
> what is the issue with people using "fake medicine"?
Because people are being tricked into thinking they’re taking medicine, preventing them from seeking out medical care.
Because people are being tricked into thinking they’re taking medicine, preventing them from seeking out medical care.
The choice is
over the counter cold medicine
vs
homeopathic "remedies".
Neither of these cure diseases. Neither of these prevent the seeking of medical care. Both of them may make people feel better (the placebo effect can be powerful). Only one of these is frequently abused by teenagers as a recreational drug.
over the counter cold medicine
vs
homeopathic "remedies".
Neither of these cure diseases. Neither of these prevent the seeking of medical care. Both of them may make people feel better (the placebo effect can be powerful). Only one of these is frequently abused by teenagers as a recreational drug.
There are plenty of people who take homeopathic and other alternative products instead of prescription products because they can't afford the prescription products, and fraudulent advertising makes them think the alternative is more or less equivalent.
I actually had someone at a pet store try to sell me homeopathic medication instead of dewormer because they were out of actual dewormer. Do you think that's harmless to someone who doesn't know the difference between giving their pet real medication vs. magic woo water?
I actually had someone at a pet store try to sell me homeopathic medication instead of dewormer because they were out of actual dewormer. Do you think that's harmless to someone who doesn't know the difference between giving their pet real medication vs. magic woo water?
Your appendix is about to burst, the surgeon is busy, but do some yoga near this crystal and it’ll clear right up
> There are plenty of people who take homeopathic and other alternative products instead of prescription products because they can't afford the prescription products,
True
But worse people use homeopathic remedies because they do not trust modern medicine
Harmless for cold cures, not harmless for infectious diseases
True
But worse people use homeopathic remedies because they do not trust modern medicine
Harmless for cold cures, not harmless for infectious diseases
I'm only advocating for homeopathic cold medicine. Real cold medicine does not cure the common cold and does have harmful side effects.
Your examples are cases where homeopathic remedies should not be marketed beside real medicine.
Your examples are cases where homeopathic remedies should not be marketed beside real medicine.
People get seduced by a somewhat internal logic. They get a fuzzy feeling of superiority in their discovery that the mainstream ignores. If you point out the absolute lack of evidence of any of what they believe in, it's because pharma is silencing them. They are excited to be enlightened, because only they can see how crooked big pharma is: they need you to be sick so you can buy their "allopathic medicine" (derogatory calling of drugs that actually work), so they're trying to kill homeopathy who would really save you ; which to be fair is not helped by the fact that pharmaceutical companies are indeed crooked and want you to be sick.
I don't think there's any volume that can be said on homeopathy that will convince anyone who already believes in it that it's all a scam.