The Legitimation of Woo Woo

MadsL

I learned recently that the Health Products Registration Agency (formerly Irish Medicines Board) also regulate the sale of homeopathic products. For the life of me I cannot understand how such products are even given the dignity of being considered medicines. Pharmacists are instructed to counsel against the purchase of codeine based products like solpadeine and yet you can cheerfully spend money on Oscillococcinum a homeopathic preparation of duck liver diluted to such an extent (1 duck part to 10 to the power 400 parts of water) that it would require the observable universe to be five times bigger in order to have mathematical certainty that one preparation might contain a molecule of the original duck liver.

Homeopathy is covered by health insurers, on sale in pharmacies, and regulated by a medicines board. Why then is there no mandatory warning on the dangers of homeopathy (It doesn't work, therefore people are dangerously delaying medical attention in favour of "alternative" medicine) numerous deaths can be attributed to unshakable faith in the woo woo, including infant deaths.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Why then in a thinking, science based society where we warn people about the dangers of smoking, eating unhealthily, overuse of drugs and the fact that shares go down as well as up that there no requirement for a big sticker on this stuff saying that there is no known medical effect of homeopathy and that it is effectively a scam to part you with your money.

So AH - should this stuff be banned or carry a warning. Should we a society stop legitimating this nonsense as being in any way a medical product?

jimgoose

Can I just say that "jimgoose and The Legitimation of Woo Woo" would be a truly outstanding name for an electropunk band?

runawaybishop

Everyone that buys any of these products should be first forced to watch this

MadsL

Also I might as well post the Tim Minchin video before anyone else does...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

Effects

Can we ban churches at the same time as well?

MadsL

Astonishingly homeopathic remedies are charged VAT at 0%, yet bottled water is charged at 23%.

Magico Gonzalez

Effective darwinian filter perhaps...get sick, drink water, end up dead. Less burden on the HSE.

Jawgap

To borrow a joke from Twitter - where are Homeopaths sans Frontieres during the Ebola outbreak?

Mr. Incognito

Stupid believes stupid.

Beano

Jawgap wrote: »

To borrow a joke from Twitter - where are Homeopaths sans Frontieres during the Ebola outbreak?

well there was a guy who created a homeopathic cure for ebola using an actual ebola sample and blogged about it on the web. I am not kidding.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/yes-a-website-published-a-homeopathic-treatment-for-ebola-article--l1qdO2Pazg

Calibos

10 for 10 rationalist posts!! Bravo AH! Thought the thread would already be full of creduloids by now. ie. The morons that believe in it and the morons who don't believe in it but defend it, "Ah but sure if it makes them feel better" etc

Beano

Calibos wrote: »

10 for 10 rationalist posts!! Bravo AH! Thought the thread would already be full of creduloids by now. ie. The morons that believe in it and the morons who don't believe in it but defend it, "Ah but sure if it makes them feel better" etc

they'll be along later. takes a while for the comprehension to kick in.

who the fug

MadsL wrote: »

Astonishingly homeopathic remedies are charged VAT at 0%, yet bottled water is charged at 23%.

Spots loophole , catches horse hooks the coach up, prepares to start driving

ScumLord

I think it can have a placebo benefit for some people that think they're sick. If some people believe it works and makes them better when medicine shows there's nothing wrong with them then placebos like this that have no medical effects are probably best because they're not harming their immune systems with real medicine.

I think you could put warnings on the bottles though, you can tell these people that it has no medical benefit and they'll just ignore you, so you might as well put the warning on for people sitting on the fence.

Knasher

I don't know what you're complaining about, homoeopathy is great. I bought homoeopathic cold medicine a while back, but as I was making my way home and crossing over the Liffy, I dropped the bottle and its contents leaked out and went into the river. Then, by the rules of homoeopathy, as the river flowed out to sea and the concoction got more and more diluted, this dramatically increased its potency. This is how I cured the common cold.

I have been meaning to see if there is some sort of reward, I feel there should be, but I haven't been able to follow up with it as I've been a little under the weather recently. Not with a cold, of course, as nobody has to worry about that any more, I think I may have discovered some new illness with remarkably cold like symptoms.

Seriously though, I had no idea they given such a seal of approval by the Irish government. I really need to stop getting surprised by each fresh disappointment given by the people we task with leading us.

Capt'n Midnight

MadsL wrote: »

Astonishingly homeopathic remedies are charged VAT at 0%, yet bottled water is charged at 23%.

I think you've spotted a gap in the market.

Joshua J

So what would these warnings look like?. Careful: side effects may include partial hydration.

I think people spend too much time looking for things to be outraged by.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

If some people believe it works and makes them better when medicine shows there's nothing wrong with them then placebos like this that have no medical effects are probably best because they're not harming their immune systems with real medicine.

that's been debunked too

Placebos work , even when you tell people they are placebos, even when those people are medically trained.

There is no excuse for pretending homoeopathy is medicine.


The worst that can happen is that a person on homoeopathy might not seek real medical help if their condition worsens while someone on sugar pills might.


Steve Jobs can always be held up as an example of how willpower and being clever, rich and powerful is no match for real medical treatment.




From 1965 , before most of us were born
http://www.leecrandallparkmd.net/researchpages/placebo1.html

From this study, we have learned that neurotic outpatients can be willing to take placebo even when the inert content is disclosed, at least in a situation presenting certain safeguards to them. In fact, many of the 15 patients appeared satisfied with the treatment; at least five patients desired to continue the placebo treatment and two felt no need of further treatment. One patient dropped out of treatment, but she manifested regret for having been talked out of continuing by her husband.

The study has shown that unawareness of the inert nature of the placebo is not an indispensable condition for improvement on placebo.

MadsL

who the fug wrote: »

Spots loophole , catches horse hooks the coach up, prepares to start driving

I thought about trying to sell homeopathic petrol as a joke, BUT IT ALREADY EXISTS!!!

Prenderb

Jawgap wrote: »

To borrow a joke from Twitter - where are Homeopaths sans Frontieres during the Ebola outbreak?

As you were asking....

https://www.vice.com/read/treating-ebola-with-homeopathy-393
http://www.freunde-liberias.de/de/blog (Translation needed)

shruikan2553

Calibos wrote: »

10 for 10 rationalist posts!! Bravo AH! Thought the thread would already be full of creduloids by now. ie. The morons that believe in it and the morons who don't believe in it but defend it, "Ah but sure if it makes them feel better" etc

The type of person who believes this type of stuff can barely dress themselves in the morning. Being able to access the internet is something for geniuses to them.

MadsL

Joshua J wrote: »

So what would these warnings look like?. Careful: side effects may include partial hydration.

I think people spend too much time looking for things to be outraged by.

Yeah, we really should ignore people, including infants, dying after they have been given unqualified medical advice.

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0602/D.0602.200505110015.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/702699.stm

Zillah

MadsL wrote: »

Also I might as well post the Tim Minchin video before anyone else does...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

I love this for more reasons than I can count.

MadsL

Knasher wrote: »

Seriously though, I had no idea they given such a seal of approval by the Irish government. I really need to stop getting surprised by each fresh disappointment given by the people we task with leading us.

I'm actually staggered that HPRA term homeopathic preparations as "homoepathic medicines"
http://www.hpra.ie/homepage/medicines/medicines-information/homoeopathic-medicines

Capt'n Midnight

Joshua J wrote: »

think people spend too much time looking for things to be outraged by.

I resent that remark :mad:

KomradeBishop

There should be a demonstrable therapeutic benefit for medicinal products with the exception that for certain product categories the demonstration of efficacy may not be required (e.g. homeopathic products – see below). If a medicinal claim is made, the consumer is entitled to expect a benefit and the review process should protect the consumer, so far as possible, from products which do not offer a potential for such benefit.

https://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/publications-forms/guidance-documents/adv-g0003-guide-to-definition-of-a-human-medicine-v3.pdf?sfvrsn=6

...the fúck??

This is enormously stupid - this is blasphemy-law level of idiocy really.

Prenderb

MadsL wrote: »

I'm actually staggered that HPRA term homeopathic preparations as "homoepathic medicines"
http://www.hpra.ie/homepage/medicines/medicines-information/homoeopathic-medicines

Seems to be an EU thing, reading through this document.

http://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/publications-forms/guidance-documents/aut-g0057-guide-to-national-rules-scheme-for-homeopathic-medicinal-products-for-human-use-v1.pdf?sfvrsn=6

KomradeBishop

Prenderb wrote: »

Seems to be an EU thing, reading through this document.

http://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/publications-forms/guidance-documents/aut-g0057-guide-to-national-rules-scheme-for-homeopathic-medicinal-products-for-human-use-v1.pdf?sfvrsn=6

I don't think it is - the document specifically references Irish legislation, I think the EU just allowed member states to make up their own mind, where it comes to homeopathic medicine.

Donkey Oaty

It should be labelled "for amusement purposes only".

TPD

Anyone who hasn't seen this, should see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

padd b1975

Beano wrote: »

well there was a guy who created a homeopathic cure for ebola using an actual ebola sample and blogged about it on the web. I am not kidding.

Just like antivenom....

Beano

padd b1975 wrote: »

Just like antivenom....

no, no its not

AnonoBoy

The only thing homeopathy ever cured was thirst.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadsL wrote: »

So AH - should this stuff be banned or carry a warning. Should we a society stop legitimating this nonsense as being in any way a medical product?

People are being conned out of their money. In many situations this is not just immoral but an actual crime. Yet somehow these people have legitimacy. So yes I think some level of law or more has to be brought to bear on this.

We also have advertising standards in this country, I think? Laws and regulations saying people can not claim their product does things it patently does not. So again why are these laws not being brought to bear? I do not know.

But even if someone is "liberal" enough to not want to ban such things, even if they are a con, and have a "People should be allowed part with their money in anyway they see fit" kind of philosophy..... what is clear is that our medical insurance and things like the HSE should not be funding these things.

I do have fond memories of the James Randi interview on the subject though where throughout the entire interview he was essentially "over dosing" on homeopathic sleep medicine. He was essentially downing not just doses of it, but sequential bottles of it throughout the entire interview. Bottle after bottle lines up empty.

He made some comical comment at the end about how the bottles claim "No side effects" but they are clearly a diuretic because he suddenly needed to pee real bad. As one might having just consumed a few litres of water.

Beano wrote: »

well there was a guy who created a homeopathic cure for ebola using an actual ebola sample and blogged about it on the web. I am not kidding.

I am not expert but did he not just break one of the core tenets of homeopathy then? You are not meant to treat a disease WITH the disease in homeopathy. Rather you are meant to treat it with substances that cause the same symptoms of the disease in question.

So for example if you can not sleep they treat with caffeine. But I have never heard that they treat a condition with the ACTUAL cause of that condition. But as I said, I am far from an expert of woo.

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it can have a placebo benefit for some people that think they're sick.

Some yes. And some doctors even prescribe placebo. The difference is however the doctors do it when they think it medically advisable. Purveyors of woo do it as their business plan and all the time. I am sure the difference and the relative harms here are not something I must expound upon.

ScumLord wrote: »

I think you could put warnings on the bottles though, you can tell these people that it has no medical benefit and they'll just ignore you, so you might as well put the warning on for people sitting on the fence.

In fairness to them, they do write "no side effects" on the bottle which aside from the diuretic properties mentioned above, is likely entirely true.

Knasher wrote: »

I dropped the bottle and its contents leaked out and went into the river. Then, by the rules of homoeopathy, as the river flowed out to sea and the concoction got more and more diluted, this dramatically increased its potency. This is how I cured the common cold.

Alas, this part I do have more expertise on than the part above, you would not have had this effect by homoeopathic opinion because you did not engage in shaking the entire Liffey 10 times backwards and forwards, 10 times left to right, and 10 times up and down. This is an "essential" step in the homoeopathic process which, if memory serves, they title "Succussion". Without this mere dilution is not said to increase the properties of the "medicine".

This was likely added to explain away why you are advised to swallow their pills with water, without that water affecting the potency of the drug.

Ave Sodalis

Whatever about homeopathy, it's a load of crap. However, chiropractors are still considered to be not medically proven and it would be an awful shame to get rid of them.

conorh91

Lets say there is some obscure form of yoga that some followers believe emits live-giving health benefits.

Lets say spinach is believed by many to be especially high in iron (it isn't btw), and yet spinach manufacturers knowingly and cynically make that implication, without breaking the law on food-labelling

Should these situations be legislated against too?

Just how far do we want the government to go in stepping-in and legislating for things that are so utterly pointless, they do absolutely no harm in themselves?

No, we should not ban homeopathy, or obscure forms of yoga, or confession, or 'dance therapy' or any of the rest of the bullsh1t things that people believe in, and which pose no inherent danger.

nozzferrahhtoo

conorh91 wrote: »

Should these situations be legislated against too?

To an extent yes. And to an extent they already are. We already have laws on misleading advertising. Just some of them are not comprehensive enough and their utility and their application could both be improved. How they are NOT comprehensive enough and/or applied correctly on people claiming their water is medicine is baffling to me.

But it goes further than merely legislating against it when it is actively being promoted or even funded by government bodies and HSE type organisations. That very much should be actively stopped. Whatever argument one might attempt to cogently level against the idea of banning it altogether.... I can think of no argument to support actively funding or promoting it or distributing it at THOSE levels.

It is a legitimate question you ask about "how far do we want government to go". Clearly the "do nothing" and "ban it all outright" extremes please very few people though, so where the line is to be drawn is an open debate.

But actively conning people out of money, selling products with high selling costs, and at times directly or indirectly compelling people to give up actual medicine that actually is keeping them alive..... these are clearly not good things. These things ARE harm. I think I read somewhere, must follow up on it, that Lourdes "holy water" for example... which people also claim causes no harm..... sold at a nice mark up of course..... was actively causing infections in people too. "No harm" is an easy flag to wave, but a hard one to support.

I would very much like to ban homoeopathy if I could. They are selling water.... at remarkable levels of mark up value..... and claiming it to be actual medicine. This is as misleading a canard and as blatant a con as any perpetuated in our society outside the realms of religion and I do not think a comparison to obscure yoga is a fair comparison because unlike homeopathy, things like meditation and yoga actually do have beneficial effects. If advertising standards laws are for _anything_ then surely this is it_. Otherwise what the hell are they even THERE for?

Genghiz Cohen

50% want to ban water, GG After Hours.

nozzferrahhtoo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

50% want to ban water, GG After Hours.

Are we reading the same thread? I have seen not a single person make any such proposition.

On a lighter note though, there was a great website hoax talking about water using the name "Dihydrogen monoxide" and how this drug is being used by atheletes, is 100% addictive, and addicts will literally die if they try to quit. Great hoax it was.

srsly78

Dihydrogen Monoxide - dangerous stuff.

People should be free to waste their money on homeopathy, but it should not be sold alongside real medicines.

MadsL

conorh91 wrote: »

Lets say there is some obscure form of yoga that some followers believe emits live-giving health benefits.

Lets say spinach is believed by many to be especially high in iron (it isn't btw), and yet spinach manufacturers knowingly and cynically make that implication, without breaking the law on food-labelling

Should these situations be legislated against too?

Just how far do we want the government to go in stepping-in and legislating for things that are so utterly pointless, they do absolutely no harm in themselves?

No, we should not ban homeopathy, or obscure forms of yoga, or confession, or 'dance therapy' or any of the rest of the bullsh1t things that people believe in, and which pose no inherent danger.

As far as I am aware there have been no cases of people losing their lives due to yoga or confession or dance therapy. Homeopathy on the other hand is implicated in many documented deaths as linked above.

MadsL

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

50% want to ban water, GG After Hours.

So obviously not the case, but let me ask you - should I be able to sell water that "cures" cold and flu symptoms? If so, what do you think I should charge? 100 euro a litre?

Ranchu

MadsL wrote: »

Astonishingly homeopathic remedies are charged VAT at 0%, yet bottled water is charged at 23%.

More astonishing is that people won't pay the minuscule price for water that the government want to impose but will pay outrageous prices for a 500ml bottle of Ballygowan and 23% tax on top of it.

MadsL

Ranchu wrote: »

More astonishing is that people won't pay the minuscule price for water that the government want to impose but will pay outrageous prices for a 500ml bottle of Ballygowan and 23% tax on top of it.

Perhaps the kitchen tap could be rebranded by Coca-Cola and dispense Deep River Rock

conorh91

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To an extent yes. And to an extent they already are. We already have laws on misleading advertising.

That has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Clearly, a lot of homeopathic products do not carry misleading advertising in the eyes of the authorities. We are effectively talking about banning non-misleading homeopathic products, since everyone presumably agrees with penalizing manufacturers where a product is in breach of existing legal obligations on advertising.

It is a legitimate question you ask about "how far do we want government to go". Clearly the "do nothing" and "ban it all outright" extremes please very few people though, so where the line is to be drawn is an open debate.

I would have thought it's a very simple debate.

If it causes harm and does not make any positive contribution to the public good, it should be banned.

But it should not be banned simply because it does not make any positive contribution to the public good.

And since it's not inherently harmful, let those crazy hippies keep it.

We need to get out of this anti-liberal mindset that we should ban things that displease and annoy us.

McChubbin

Might as well post the obiligitory Dara O' Briain video:

KomradeBishop

conorh91 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Clearly, a lot of homeopathic products do not carry misleading advertising in the eyes of the authorities. We are effectively talking about banning non-misleading homeopathic products, since everyone presumably agrees with penalizing manufacturers where a product is in breach of existing legal obligations on advertising.

See the regulations:

There should be a demonstrable therapeutic benefit for medicinal products with the exception that for certain product categories the demonstration of efficacy may not be required (e.g. homeopathic products – see below). If a medicinal claim is made, the consumer is entitled to expect a benefit and the review process should protect the consumer, so far as possible, from products which do not offer a potential for such benefit.

https://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/publications-forms/guidance-documents/adv-g0003-guide-to-definition-of-a-human-medicine-v3.pdf?sfvrsn=6

Homeopathic products are allowed to claim efficacy for certain treatments, without having any burden of proof to show that efficacy, which is misleading - i.e. it's a legalized form of false advertising.

conorh91

MadsL wrote: »

As far as I am aware there have been no cases of people losing their lives due to yoga or confession or dance therapy. Homeopathy on the other hand is implicated in many documented deaths as linked above.

No. Stupidity is implicated.

The OP gave an example of a homeopathic product being a tiny residue of duck liver in a suspension of water.

That product is incapable of being implicated in death. How on Earth would you even ban it? Like, how would that statute read?

On the other hand, refusing to recognize modern medicine is implicated.

But we can't legislate for that.

conorh91

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Homeopathic products are allowed to claim efficacy for certain treatments, without having any burden of proof to show that efficacy, which is misleading - i.e. it's a legalized form of false advertising.

Fine, lets tighten up the law of advertising.

But we can't ban homeopathy. And even though it is a BS pseudoscience, we shouldn't ban it even if we could.

nozzferrahhtoo

conorh91 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with the question at hand.

It has everything to do with it. We have laws against misleading advertising. We have laws against conning people out of their money. What are these laws even FOR if they can not be brought to bear on people seeling water, at massive mark up, and claiming it to be medicine?

What is NOT misleading about that?

conorh91 wrote: »

I would have thought it's a very simple debate.

Offering simplistic answers does not make a debate simple.

conorh91 wrote: »

And since it's not inherently harmful, let those crazy hippies keep it.

How is conning people out of money not harmful? How is convincing sick people to drink water instead of seek actual medical advice and medicine not harmful? How is suggesting people stop taking actual medicine that is keeping them alive not harmful?

You have a seriously odd definition of harm I feel.

conorh91 wrote: »

We need to get out of this anti-liberal mindset that we should ban things that displease and annoy us.

Then you must be over joyed to realize I have suggest no such thing, anywhere, ever.

conorh91 wrote: »

But we can't ban homeopathy. And even though it is a BS pseudoscience, we shouldn't ban it even if we could.

It is not essentially the banning of the product that is the issue. It is the banning of them making ANY claims whatsoever about the product other than that it is water. Because that is what it is. And any claim, implicit or explicit to the contrary, is a misleading canard that should bear the full brunt of our ire. It is an outright lie or the greatest proportion from which people are profiting greatly at the expense of our sick, one of the most vulnerable and needy and desperate of our society.

Capt'n Midnight

srsly78 wrote: »

Dihydrogen Monoxide - dangerous stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30080768

The global survey suggests it claims more than 372,000 lives each year - with children under five most at risk.

WHO officials say it is a hidden childhood killer, leading to more deaths among under-15s than tuberculosis or measles in 2012.

They say more needs to be done to tackle this preventable loss of life.