The Legitimation of Woo Woo

Beano · 26-11-2014 08:47PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Just like antivenom....

no, no its not

AnonoBoy · 26-11-2014 08:56PM

The only thing homeopathy ever cured was thirst.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 09:55PM

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 · 26-11-2014 10:00PM

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 · 26-11-2014 10:08PM

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 · 26-11-2014 10:18PM

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 · 26-11-2014 10:40PM

50% want to ban water, GG After Hours.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 10:43PM

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 · 26-11-2014 10:49PM

Dihydrogen Monoxide - dangerous stuff.

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

MadsL · 27-11-2014 01:18AM

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 · 27-11-2014 01:21AM

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 · 27-11-2014 01:31AM

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 · 27-11-2014 01:34AM

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 · 27-11-2014 08:45PM

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 · 27-11-2014 08:48PM

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

KomradeBishop · 27-11-2014 09:00PM

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 · 27-11-2014 09:05PM

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 · 27-11-2014 09:07PM

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 · 27-11-2014 09:45PM

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 · 27-11-2014 09:47PM

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.

Kurtosis · 27-11-2014 09:59PM

MadsL wrote: »

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?

Firstly, pharmacists are not instructed to counsel against the purchase of codeine products.

With regards to homeopathic products, one of the main reasons they are regulated by the IMB/HPRA is so that no medical claims are made on these products, it does not add legitimacy regarding any medicinal effect - sure cosmetics are also regulated by the HPRA.

To be honest I'd probably be more concerned with the widespread recommendation and use of a lot of over the counter products that have no real evidence of effectiveness but do have an inherent risk of harm.

srsly78 · 27-11-2014 10:00PM

Pharmacists are supposed to refuse you codeine products based on their own judgement, because of the potential for abuse/addiction. Many of these products don't need a prescription. Maybe not "restrictions", but new guidelines. Everytime I went to buy stuff like neurofen plus now they ask me questions rather than just handing it over.

How is Homeopathy "regulated"? It doesn't contain anything so what exactly gets tested!?

Penguin - see the post above quoting the law on "misleading medicines". Homeopathy gets a free pass and does not have to show any effect! Joke of a law that should be changed.

conorh91 · 27-11-2014 10:13PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not essentially the banning of the product that is the issue.

Read the poll! It is precisely the issue and precisely what i have been referring to throughout.

Advertising medicines is irrelevant to everything I have been saying, and repeating references to such advertising is not making your point any more relevant.

Kurtosis · 27-11-2014 11:41PM

srsly78 wrote: »

Pharmacists are supposed to refuse you codeine products based on their own judgement, because of the potential for abuse/addiction. Many of these products don't need a prescription. Maybe not "restrictions", but new guidelines. Everytime I went to buy stuff like neurofen plus now they ask me questions rather than just handing it over.

How is Homeopathy "regulated"? It doesn't contain anything so what exactly gets tested!?

Penguin - see the post above quoting the law on "misleading medicines". Homeopathy gets a free pass and does not have to show any effect! Joke of a law that should be changed.

This is off-topic but about the codeine products: again, pharmacists are not supposed to refuse sale of these. They are supposed to supply them for appropriate use in appropriate circumstances. As I said, not what this thread is about, just wanted to correct the inaccuracy.

Homeopathy is regulated in that there are requirements that must be met in order for them to be placed on the market.

If by "law on misleading medicines" you are referring HPRA guide linked above, I am familiar with what is discussed in it and it does not really back up your point. Like other medicinal products, homeopathic products have to demonstrate safety and quality. With regards to efficacy, there are two routes by which homeopathic products can be registered. Firstly they can make no medicinal claims/have no indication listed. Alternatively they can be registered under traditional use rules (where it can be demonstrated that the product has been historically used in Ireland for the indication sought) and in such cases be labelled to show the following:

(a) that the product is a homeopathic medicinal product in respect of which an authorisation has been granted in accordance with this Regulation;

(b) that any evidence of efficacy on the part of the product has not been based on the outcome of clinical trials;

(c) that use of the product is only intended for the symptomatic relief of the condition to which the indication specified relates; and

(d) that the user is advised to consult a doctor or other healthcare professional if the symptoms persist.

kylith · 27-11-2014 11:43PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

There was a kind of demonstration some years back where people took massive overdoses of homeopathic preparations to prove that nothing would happen. The homeopathic industry's response? They claimed that their 'remedies' knew if you were unwell or not and wouldn't function if there was nothing wrong with you! Honestly, they claim that not only can water remember one part of onion juice per gagillion, it can diagnose you too!

KomradeBishop · 28-11-2014 12:58AM

I really struggle to understand how people can end up believing stuff like that - I know some perfectly nice people who are into woo-ey things, and you can practically sense the cognitive-dissonance off them, when discussing such topics (usually when discussing the lack of evidence part, and trying - futilely - to explain how you can't truly know something without evidence, and especially how you can't ignore evidence).

I don't press it when discussing, as those I know are very nice people who I'd like to know, and I don't want to be a jerk, but it's something that's just so hard to relate to or understand - how do people end up believing things like this, and become so invested in these beliefs, that they do not seem able to grok the importance of evidence

I'm actually fascinated by the psychology of that, because it's just so baffling trying to understand precisely what it is that makes or motivates someone to think that way - yet you see it everywhere (across all sorts of topics - not just woo-ey stuff).

miss tickle · 28-11-2014 01:29AM

MadsL wrote: »

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

I think they have to regulate it in the interest of human safety. Some of this stuff is derived from some quite poisonous sources, like night shade for example. They need to make sure that what is available is adequately diluted not to cause harm.

MadsL · 28-11-2014 04:40AM

miss tickle wrote: »

I think they have to regulate it in the interest of human safety. Some of this stuff is derived from some quite poisonous sources, like night shade for example. They need to make sure that what is available is adequately diluted not to cause harm.

Which is exactly the point the 'weaker' concentrations are controlled whilst more 'potent' dilutions are considered harmless.

I really feel that it would be in the greater good to at least acknowledge what we objectively know to be true through scientific observation - that there is nothing in homeopathy - mathematically and rationally.

I feel the public good is served by at the very least having a sticker on such 'medicines' indicating the fact they are in fact not medicine.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-11-2014 11:35AM

conorh91 wrote: »

Read the poll! It is precisely the issue and precisely what i have been referring to throughout.

I was not talking about the poll. I am talking about my opinions on what the issue actually is. The simple fact is these people are making the worst kind of false claim, this is causing harm, this is conning people out of money, and it is horrific.

The poll is incomplete however, it does not address half the issues that are relevant. Such as government and HSE type agencies supporting, distributing and financing the products at great expense and harm.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I really struggle to understand how people can end up believing stuff like that

Actually I have a lot of sympathy for their delusions in things like this. So perhaps some of the things I have studied and know might help, if I may.

Like psychic reading and mediums, a lot of the power comes from people putting stock in testimony and anecdote. It just takes a few people convinced it did something for them, to then convince others, and then others, and so on.

But there is a source of them getting convinced by this nonsense that is even more powerful than that. And it is something we know well in biology and medicine.

There is a term we use in epidemiology called "Return to the mean" which essentially means that illnesses are cyclical not linear. You do not feel steadily worse and then steadily better. Rather worse, then better, then worse than before, then better, then worse than ever, then better, then not so bad as before, then better..... and so on.

So when people hit their worst point in this graph they get desperate to try anything. They then take some nonsense woo like homeopathy or, the more recent one I hear a lot, rub vicks vapo rub on the soles of their feet..... and loe and behold they start to feel better. Because they were on the point of the graph where they were about to ANYWAY.

So next time their graph peaks they try again. And it works again! QED!

And so on and so forth. And it can be powerfully convincing, mainly because people do not notice this whole "graph" thing when they are not trying things to get better. So they really become convinced whatever woo of choice they are implementing really is doing something of use.

Akrasia · 28-11-2014 12:06PM

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Feck Homeopathy for a placebo, we should go back to the 'mammy will kiss it better' placebo

Where are we gonna put the regulatory information on our mammies though??

(warning, not to be used in cases of herpes or ebola)

The Legitimation of Woo Woo

Comments