Slashdot Mirror


FDA Says Homeopathic Cure Can Cause Loss of Smell

Hugh Pickens writes "The FDA has advised consumers to stop using Matrixx Initiatives' Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel marketed over-the-counter as a cold remedy because it is associated with the loss of sense of smell (anosmia) that may be long-lasting or permanent. The FDA says about 130 consumers have reported a loss of smell after using the homeopathic cure containing zinc, an ingredient scientists say may damage nerves in the nose needed for smell and health officials say they have asked Matrixx executives to turn over more than 800 consumer complaints concerning lost smell that the company has on file. 'Loss of the sense of smell is potentially life-threatening and may be permanent,' said Dr. Charles Lee. 'People without the sense of smell may not be able to detect life-dangerous situations, such as gas leaks or something burning in the house.' The FDA said the remedy was never formally approved because it is part of a small group of remedies known as homeopathic products that are not required to undergo federal review before launching. The global market for homeopathic drugs is about $200 million per year, according to the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists. Matrixx has settled hundreds of lawsuits connected with Zicam in recent years, but says it 'will seek a meeting with the FDA to vigorously defend its scientific data, developed during more than 10 years of experience with the products, demonstrating their safety.'"

452 comments

  1. Wait, can't colds do that too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously, I get a cold, I can't smell anything either. So really, it seems I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

    1. Re:Wait, can't colds do that too? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      A common cold goes away after 10 days at most. Then the sense of smell will come back.
      That nasal gel can damage your nose nerves so you lose the sense of smell for a long time if not for the rest of your life.

      It is quite a difference, quiaff?

      Even worse, the sense of smell and taste are combined so you would also lose a part of your taste sense.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  2. It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    if it actually does anything at all.

    1. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Rynor · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's funny cuz it's true

    2. Re:It's not really homeopathic by fractoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      True. Apparently it "contains zinc" - according to this fact sheet:

      While Zicam also makes zinc-containing oral cold remedies, these are not subject to this warning because the development of anosmia appears to be related to the intranasal application of zinc.

      Don't these guys know ANYTHING about homeopathic medicines? The strongest ones don't have any of the 'active ingredient' in them at all, you just take sugar pills and think happy thoughts at them until the sun shines out your ass.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:It's not really homeopathic by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the interesting thing is that the placebo effect (which you are basically describing) is a very well documented medical fact. in some studies the placebo is actually more effective than the drug being tested, and its not because the drug sucks or that people are faking it. there is a huge misconception and stigma surrounding placebos. MDs prescribe them regularly. they _WORK_ . sure, its basically fooling your brain, but whats wrong with that? if you have a neuralgia or pain or dysfunction and somebody gives you a pill and the condition improves, what does it matter what the pill is made of? placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    4. Re:It's not really homeopathic by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nah, real homeopathic meds don't even have sugar, they're just water.

    5. Re:It's not really homeopathic by dloose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.

      I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Granted, they're not very harmful, but you could easily experience things like dry mouth, headaches, muscle aches, etc. Remember, your body is reacting as though it received medicine. If someone gives you a placebo and tells you it's a cold remedy, you will probably experience the same side effects you experience with Sudafed.

    6. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Ryvar · · Score: 1

      That's the most damning thing about this - myself and several friends have used Zicam heavily over the past year. It *really* works if you're in a super-high-stress job that exposes you to a lot of colds/flu (med student, floor trader for a brokerage, constantly traveling for business, etc.).

      I got a vicious cold last weekend and would not be traveling right now if it weren't for the stuff, and the universal reaction from the group of people I just IM'd to make sure they knew was, "Crap... it's *almost* worth it."

      It's not almost worth it, of course, but the one thing I'll say for Zicam is that it definitely does what it claims to do.

      Damn.

    7. Re:It's not really homeopathic by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      In this case, yes, it is. It's a homeopathic solution of several ingredients, but contains a normal (non-homeopathic, i.e. effective) dose of an actual medication, zinc gluconate.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    8. Re:It's not really homeopathic by karmatic · · Score: 1

      placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.
      Not Necessarily

    9. Re:It's not really homeopathic by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.

      I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Granted, they're not very harmful, but you could easily experience things like dry mouth, headaches, muscle aches, etc. Remember, your body is reacting as though it received medicine. If someone gives you a placebo and tells you it's a cold remedy, you will probably experience the same side effects you experience with Sudafed.

      The prescribing doctor is the cause of the side effects: "Be sure to take these pills with lots of water and maybe a cracker or two, they're really powerful and give some people a bit of nausea."

      It's the sales job that makes placebos work, and part of convincing people that it's effective is to add that "powerful" tag. And nobody would believe a perfect pill with no side effects exists, or we'd all be taking them every day.

      --
      John
    10. Re:It's not really homeopathic by BobGarcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Homeopathy is the molecular analog to astrology.

      --
      Half of my words are lies. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can tell which.
    11. Re:It's not really homeopathic by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that but I remember reading a study on the effect years ago(maybe someone can find a link? My Search Fu does suck) where they gave those in pain morphine for several days and then either gave them a placebo with JUST water, or one with water and a morphine blocker. Now since the morphine was already out of their system the morphine blocker should have had NO effect at all, yet those that were given the placebo without a morphine blocker experienced a reducing of pain while those given the morphine blocker experienced an INCREASE in pain.

      They tried these experiments with several other drugs and the results were the same. We really don't know WTF is going on when it comes to the human brain, not really. IMHO the placebo effect shows that we can never know with 100% certainty what a drug is going to do, becase the human brain can skew the outcome one way or another. That is why research on the brain and the electro-chemical reactions is so important. We really need to understand how the entire machine works to design effective drugs.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:It's not really homeopathic by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      MDs prescribe them regularly.

      Do they? I was under the impression that prescribing a placebo as treatment and lieing to a patient would be unethical. If I'm ill and there is no treatment surely I have a right to be told that. If I'm ill and there is a treatment (ie works better than placebo) then the doctor should be giving that.

    13. Re:It's not really homeopathic by pajamapaati · · Score: 1

      Actually ISTR hearing of a test where they actually told people "we're giving you a placebo" and they still had significantly better-than chance improvements. Dunno if they explained what the word "placebo" meant tho' :-)

    14. Re:It's not really homeopathic by assert(0) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Randomized controlled trials is the only way to tell if it "*really* works". Anecdotes are worthless in evaluating (alleged) cures. For every useless substance there is, you *will* find users who "used to be skeptics" but now "swear by them", falsely convinced they "*really* work". Because of post hoc ergo propter hoc, spontaneous remission, false diagnosis, placebo effect, confirmation bias and a slew of other fallacies.

      Evangelists like yourself and peers with poorly developed critical thinking skills (ie. most humans) are the exact reason these "cures" are still around - despite having no biological plausibility and negative RCT results against them.

      --
      (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
    15. Re:It's not really homeopathic by MattXBlack · · Score: 1

      In the case of this cold remedy there are probably other things helping the placebo effect. Buying it in a chemist (where the medicines live); word of mouth (it really worked wonders for Maureen next door - her cold was gone in just a week and a half!); a sciencey label with precise directions on how to use it, including, I'm guessing, a little diagram with viruses being blocked.

    16. Re:It's not really homeopathic by dargaud · · Score: 1
      There's also the opposite 'nocebo' effect, which I just saw first hand on our 95yo granma which just went to the hospital for the first time after a stroke. It can be summed up as: "Oh no, they are sending me to the hospital! They are giving me pills! This is the end!" before letting go...

      But back to the subject at hand, if this remedy does indeed contain any zinc at all, it's no longer homeopathic. Then why is it allowed on the market without FDA approval ? I used to think there was a very narrow definition for homeopathic crap (1CH=1%, 2CH=1e-4, etc), but I've seen several homeopathic bottles in recent times (the entire family believes in them) that do indeed contain something. Why ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    17. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the sales job that makes placebos work, and part of convincing people that it's effective is to add that "powerful" tag. And nobody would believe a perfect pill with no side effects exists, or we'd all be taking them every day.

      Not at all true. Read Bad Science - it;s very interesting reading. Even when people are speficially told that they are taking an inactive placebo that will have no effect they still perform better than the control group.

      Plcebos are totally freaky.

    18. Re:It's not really homeopathic by adolf · · Score: 1

      *shug*

      I used to have a small vial of a "homeopathic" depression remedy, bought here in the States about 15 years ago, which (among a few other things) contained a small amount of arsenic.

      Why is it that folks here think that homeopathic drugs should contain nothing?

    19. Re:It's not really homeopathic by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where do we get these placebos???

      Sure, there are interesting arguments about the use of placebos. But that's no excuse for allowing people to profit by selling water, fraudulently claiming it does something that it does not. Note also that homeopath believers typically claim that it has an effect beyond that of a placebo.

      And yes, if we were just wanting to use placebos, you are right: what does it matter what the pill is made of. There is no need to go through the long winded homeopathic ritual, you could just give them water and tell them you'd done whatever hocus pocus to it.

    20. Re:It's not really homeopathic by lxs · · Score: 5, Informative

      True homeopathy is the alleged "science" of diluting a substance with water until there is nothing left but water. Only the "memory" of the water having contained the stuff remains. (look up dr.Emoto for more wacky antics surrounding the memory of water. Emoto by the way has a real doctorate but not in a field relevant to his research.)

      Many alternative medicines are promoted as homeopathic when they are nothing of the sort.

    21. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      At so-called homeopathic dilutions, there is literally no arsenic left in the "remedy". Dilution reaches a limit when you reach atoms, and homeopathy is beyond that limit.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    22. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The substance in question contained non-homeopathic amounts of zinc gluconate. Zinc gluconate has been explored with RCTs as a means of suppressing colds, but in pill form. Some studies have said it worked (although reviews did not find sufficient evidence). It's not at all impossible that when applied in this more brutal way (sticking it up your nose) it should have some effect.

      Don't go all bananas with an anti-homeopathy rant just because someone had good experience with this stuff. If you didn't dismiss personal experiences so easily, you might have learned something - in this case, that the remedy wasn't homeopathic after all.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    23. Re:It's not really homeopathic by radtea · · Score: 1

      I believe they market it as homeopathic to avoid FDA regulation. It contains a non-trivial amount of a zinc compound, and zinc is an anti-viral.

      The homeopathic label has never made any sense to me (although it had the pleasant effect of breaking me up with a psycho girlfriend who didn't like what I said about homoeopathy when I described Zicam to her...)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    24. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get "Cebocap" in 3 different "strengths" (Red, Green, and Blue) at most pharmacies. They keep it on hand in case a doctor writes an Rx for a placebo.

      http://www.walgreens.com/library/finddrug/druginfo.jsp?particularDrug=Cebocap&searchChar=

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    25. Re:It's not really homeopathic by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      ... you just take sugar pills and think happy thoughts at them until the sun shines out your ass.

      Good plan! Then you can sponge more cash out of them for homeopathic remedies for anal sunburn and anal malignant melanoma!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    26. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very true, the GP's point was however, that placebos should not be counted out as having no medicinal value.

    27. Re:It's not really homeopathic by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Heh yes - the amusing thing is that if this really was homeopathic, even proof of a negative effect would be revolutionary scientifically, and would ironically be good for homeopaths as suddenly they could legitimately claim that their tap water could have good effects too.

      It won't happen though, as it's already been tested to be bogus, of course.

    28. Re:It's not really homeopathic by msh104 · · Score: 1

      Well it contains water thats for sure.

      But just look at how many times it is diluded.
      Some ingredients are are deluded beyond the point of a single molecule.

      Most people would count that as nothing.

      Homeopathy is build with the current assumtions:

      1. What causes and ill, also cures it.
      2. You don't give people the undiluted substance
      3. The more you dillude that substance the more powerful it becomes as a medicine.

      If you find something that that has a high dose of something it's not homeopathic by definition.

      The principles of homeopathy have no basis in science whatsoever.
      It made no sense when it was made up and it still makes no sense today.

    29. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study you mention has since been discredited. The subjects knew what was going on, and so did the doctors, so the placebo effect describes the results. I see this study mentioned every time by homeopathic defenders at scienceblogs.com, but it gets shot down every. single. time.

    30. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 'cause everyone was all "If I'm just being given a sugar pill as treatment, I'm going home and taking some real medicine."

    31. Re:It's not really homeopathic by steelfood · · Score: 1

      "Be sure to take these pills with lots of water and maybe a cracker or two, they're really powerful and give some people a bit of nausea."

      And you might also notice an increase in urination frequency.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    32. Re:It's not really homeopathic by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Very expensive sugar pills. Come to think of it, I think we have homeopathic government: extremely expensive, no active ingredients, completely relies on placebo effect

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    33. Re:It's not really homeopathic by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Placebos work when the problem is all in your head, but they will not cure or treat any real disease. Prescribe placebos for a staph infection, cancer, AIDS or any other real disease, and the patient will die. Homeopathy is just a placebo.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    34. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I agree with almost all points of parent post.

      But saying that the placebo effect is due to "fooling your brain" is just wrong. No one knows what the mechanism of the placebo effect is. It is outside the frameworks of any of the currently established sciences: it cannot be approached as physics, chemistry, or psychology even though it has strong effects in all of these realms.

      Just accept that the placebo effect exists and we don't have a clue about how it works, or even how to investigate it. Using imagination to supply an acceptable mechanism for something we don't understand is an abuse of the powers of imagination and oh so very pre-scientific. Science can only advance when persons are willing to say "I don't know".

      --
      Will
    35. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Ichoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Morphine works because it mimics natural opioids. It's extremely unlikely that a morphine blocker wouldn't block any natural opioids at all. That's the whole point--morphine and natural opioids are too close to each other in structure.

      So the expectation should be that the morphine blocker *would* cause an effect because it blocks the natural opioids.

    36. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminder me of my latest frustrating discussion with a true homeopathic believer. I said, how can something that has such powerful effects not have any negative effects. I was told that's because it's really mostly water. There's nothing there to cause bad side effects. So then I asked if there's nothing there how can it cause good effects and once again I get some silly mumbo jumbo about latent energy and such. So I try, what if I don't have a runny nose and I take a homeopathic remedy for one and it dries my out too much, just like if I take an antihistamine. I'm told that an antihistamine is a drug, it can do bad things. Homeopathy can only do good things. Morons.

    37. Re:It's not really homeopathic by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 1

      Dude, I wouldn't argue with anything you wrote, but I signed in just to tell you that you spelled "diluted" 3 different ways, all of them wrong.

      You got "undiluted" right, though.

    38. Re:It's not really homeopathic by assert(0) · · Score: 1

      Huh? What anti-homeopathy rant?

      --
      (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
    39. Re:It's not really homeopathic by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Widely reported, verified stories prove otherwise.

      A most dramatic placebo effect has been reported by Dr. Bruno Klopfer, a researcher involved in the testing of the drug Krebiozen. In 1950, Krebiozen had received sensational national publicity as a âoecureâ for cancer and was being tested by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the US Food and drug administration (FDA).

      One of Dr. Klopfer's patients had lymphosarcoma, a generalized far-advanced malignancy involving the lymph nodes. The patient had huge tumor masses throughout his body and was in such desperate physical condition that he frequently had to take oxygen by mask, and fluid had to be removed from his chest every two days. When the patient discovered that Dr. Klopfer was involved in research on Krebiozen, he begged to be given Krebiozen treatments. Dr Klopfer did so, and the patientâ(TM)s recovery was startling. Within a short time the tumors had shrunk dramatically and the patient was able to resume a normal life, including flying a private plane.

      Then as AMA and FDA reports of the negative results of Krebiozen started being publicized, the patient took a dramatic turn to the worse. Thinking the circumstances extreme enough to justify unusual measures, Klopfer, told his patient that he obtained a new, super-refined, double-strength Krebiozen, that would produce better results. Actually, the injections Klopfer gave were simply sterile water.. Yet the patientâ(TM)s recovery was even more remarkable.. Once again the tumor masses melted, chest fluid vanished, and he became ambulatory and went back to flying. The patient remained symptoms-free for two months. The patientâ(TM)s belief alone, independent of the value of the medication, produced his recovery.

      Then further stories of the AMA and FDA's tests appeared in press: âoeNationwide tests show Krebiozen to be worthless drug treatment of cancer.â Within a few days the patient was dead.

      That's one of the most famous examples. More research ought to be done into the power that belief can have over the body, because there is a lot of evidence for it, yet it would be very tricky: every individual's level of faith in each method of treatment is different and can be greatly affected by subtle body language given off by the doctor and hundreds of other factors. In other words, it is not a rational or clear-cut process, and therefore very hard to make scientific.

    40. Re:It's not really homeopathic by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The study you mention has since been discredited

      Has it?

      Here's the study (or a similar study):
      http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/short/25/45/10390

      Post a reference showing it discredited, please.

      The placebo effect is quite real, even if placebos are not.

    41. Re:It's not really homeopathic by SBrach · · Score: 1

      It probably goes like this;
      Dr: I am giving you a placebo.
      Patient: What, a sugar pill? That won't do anything!
      Dr: No, it has been shown that the placebo effect works even when the patient knows.

      Hence, the patient believes something will happen, so it does. Placebo effect.

    42. Re:It's not really homeopathic by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      Not to mentioned getting bilked for the most expensive sugar pills you've ever bought.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    43. Re:It's not really homeopathic by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Dude, I wouldn't argue with anything you wrote, but I signed in just to tell you that you spelled "diluted" 3 different ways, all of them wrong.

      Well, the "deluded" was pretty close, he just got the target wrong. The ingredients are diluted, the user of the ingredients is deluded.

    44. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Dewin · · Score: 1

      What if you have a minor illness that isn't really treatable but will go away just fine on its own?

      Just thinking that you're taking something will make you feel better, and making you feel better is the doctor's job isn't it?

      --
      Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
    45. Re:It's not really homeopathic by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "in some studies the placebo is actually more effective than the drug being tested, "

      Yes, but that's do to a poor drug. TO be considered medical effective it must perform better the placebo.

      Placebo are not 'regularly' prescribe'. There has been a report of increased use, but it's not precribed 'regularly'.

      "...but whats wrong with that? i"
      Because you aren't actually treating anything.

      "if you have a neuralgia or pain or dysfunction and somebody gives you a pill and the condition improves"
      The condition DOES NOT improve. You just mask symptoms. You can not heal an injury with the placebo.

      "what does it matter what the pill is made of?
      Becasue some homeopathic drugs marketing under 'placebo' effect have been know to have actually things in them, like Zinc, or Speed, or a dengerous level of vitamins.

      "placebos should be preferred as they don't have side effects."
      except they can make people ignore the actually problem, and then die.

      Not about placebos specifically, but along the same vain as your post:

      http://whatstheharm.net/

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    46. Re:It's not really homeopathic by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually, even when people know they are getting a placebo they can work. More importantly is how 'serious' the placebo is. A red pill is more effective then a blue pill, and a liqued is more powerful then a pill, and invasive procedure even more so.

      It is unethical to give patients a placebo.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    47. Re:It's not really homeopathic by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Cebocap

      Select a dosage form below to view full drug information.
      If a generic equivalent is available, it will also be displayed.

      Hm, no generic available for Cebocap.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    48. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Widely reported [what-is-cancer.com], verified stories prove otherwise.

      The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". By the same standards, there are "widely reported verified stories" of bigfoot.

    49. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      I noticed that, as well.

      I wonder if you need an Rx to get these? Are they covered on any insurance company prescription plan? Do they provide the usual patient information sheet (explaining the drug and its effects/side effects) with them?

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    50. Re:It's not really homeopathic by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Is it a crime to sell or distribute these without a prescription or a license to dispense medicine?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    51. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      in some studies the placebo is actually more effective than the drug being tested, and its not because the drug sucks or that people are faking it

      That's one of the silliest things anyone has ever written on slashdot. If your medicine works worse than a placebo (which, by definition, does not work), then you're damn right it's because "the drug sucks". You're probably feeding your patient poison.

      there is a huge misconception and stigma surrounding placebos ... sure, its basically fooling your brain, but whats wrong with that?

      The only misconception here is yours: placebos don't fool your brain. They don't do anything. YOU fool your brain. The placebo - whether it be a pill, a liquid, goofy crystals, acupuncture, or prayer - does nothing other than put a dent in your wallet.

      placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.

      I hope your girlfriend takes a placebo birth-control pill.

    52. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.

      I hope your girlfriend takes a placebo birth-control pill.

    53. Re:It's not really homeopathic by adolf · · Score: 1

      Why, then, did it taste of arsenic? (Please don't ask me how I know this.)

    54. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Oh they will treat real physical disease. It's not the sugarpill that helps you get better sooner, offcourse, it's the effect of your mental state on your physical wellbeing. It's entirely possible that the placebo-effect alone will let someone survive something they otherwise wouldn't.

    55. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think part of the problem is how everyone defines Homeopathic & Alternative medicines.
      Lots of people use these terms interchangeably. I'm guilty of it myself.
      Some consider homeopathy any thing that uses naturally occurring herbs &/or drugs as H Medicine. I would consider this as Alternative Medicine not H Medicine.
      I prefer Alternative meds to Manufactured meds myself. I just recently stopped using 300 mg of Effexor XR a day (using for over 3 years) and starting to look into natural ways of dealing with depression. Once I got past the withdrawal symptoms from the Effexor, which there are many of, I've been having much more energy my BP has gone back to normal levels and many other things have improved too. I do notice I don't have the patience I used to have while on the drug. But thatâ(TM)s minor compared to the pluses gained by quitting.

      I believe Alternative & Modern Day medicine need to work together to find a CURE, as opposed to just covering up the symptoms till they go away, for what ails you. I don't take cold meds when I have a cold either.

      I'm not going to create and account to post once but i dont want to be anonymous either.
      Harry L.

    56. Re:It's not really homeopathic by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Oh please. There are thousands of studies showing a powerful placebo effect. It is such a powerful force they had to construct double blind studies to attempt to factor out this healing force. I hate witch-doctory more than anyone but the results are in: The human mind has a huge effect on the human body. If you think you took some medicine you will sometimes get better just like magic.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    57. Re:It's not really homeopathic by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Widely reported [what-is-cancer.com], verified stories prove otherwise.

      The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". By the same standards, there are "widely reported verified stories" of bigfoot.

      Yes, there are, and the bigfoot hoaxes have discredited the actual evidence in much the same way that "mind over matter" healing hoaxes have. I took a course in cryptozoology during college, studying all sorts of animals not recognized or only recently recognized by science, and I learned better ways to interpret evidence than to throw it all out because there are hoaxes and most people don't believe in the (potentially) real thing.

      Recent discoveries that were previously considered to be myths and hoaxes include pygmy deer in Vietnam (or Thailand, forget which) and the widely reported "hobbits" of Indonesia. My judgment of the large volume of evidence I have seen tells me that despite all the hoaxes, Bigfoot probably does indeed exist. Most of the other famous creatures like the Loch Ness Monster or Chupacabra probably do not--evidence for those is much sketchier and easily debunked.

      The mainstream attitude in western medicine is the same outlook as that of western zoology: potentially legitimate evidence is marginalized and ignored because of a stigma attached to the domain. The plural of "anecdote" may not be "data," but it is anecdotal evidence that first flags our attention to something interesting. Anecdotal evidence is not a good thing to base a theory on, but it provides the basis for a hypothesis. The problem comes when hypotheses are repeatedly proposed yet are discarded on the basis that "there is no scientific proof." Well, of course there isn't--nobody's willing to do a study!

      I also mentioned the difficulty of this particular field since it is an intersection of medicine and psychology, and is not easily normalized.

    58. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That comment was a parody, right? :) Thanks, you've brightened up my morning!

    59. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well as long as you agree that there is just as much evidence for bigfoot as there is for the healing powers of homeopathy ... I really don't think we have much to discuss! Thanks! You've made my case for me, better than I could have hoped to :)

    60. Re:It's not really homeopathic by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but I was being serious. It's hard to tell sometimes with me.

      Placebo effects are real. Here is an interesting case where placebo surgery is as effective or more effective than real knee surgery. There are literally thousands of studies showing placebo effects. The placebo effect is considered to be a substantial part of any clinically accepted treatment. Wikipedia has a good article on the placebo effect.

      Many people are dismissive of placebos. Bah, they say. Placebo means no effect. The truth is different! I often wish I wasn't so cynical and well informed. Antibiotics don't work as well on my colds as they do on my less informed friends. Homeopathic remedies do nothing for me. Even my foot surgery went badly, possibly because I didn't believe in it with a childlike absolute faith.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    61. Re:It's not really homeopathic by sorak · · Score: 1

      IANA doctor, but you need to be corrected for some of the blaring misconceptions you have.

      the interesting thing is that the placebo effect (which you are basically describing) is a very well documented medical fact. in some studies the placebo is actually more effective than the drug being tested,

      No, it isn't When the drug being tested is less effective than the placebo, then that means it is not effective.

      and its not because the drug sucks or that people are faking it. there is a huge misconception and stigma surrounding placebos. MDs prescribe them regularly.

      And when they do, it's called "FRAUD". Again, IANA doctor, but placebos only work if the patient doesn't know they getting snake oil. Doctors could get disbarred for doing what you say they're doing.

      they _WORK_ . sure, its basically fooling your brain,

      There's more to it than that. People taking medication often alter their behavior, eating better, exercising more, and doing all the things their doctor keeps telling them they should be doing. That's a big part of why taking a sugar pill is more effective than simply doing nothing.

      but whats wrong with that?

      See the fraud statement before. You're telling the patient to buy something he doesn't need. That expense is being passed on to the insurance company. Do you think they would simply shell out the money and go on?

      placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.

      They don't have normal effects either.

    62. Re:It's not really homeopathic by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      And when they do, it's called "FRAUD". Again, IANA doctor, but placebos only work if the patient doesn't know they getting snake oil. Doctors could get disbarred for doing what you say they're doing.

      doctors dont get disbarred, lawyers do. its not called fraud, its called treatment, its a physicians professional opinion. there are ethics doctors have to deal with but placebos are not unethical.

      There's more to it than that. People taking medication often alter their behavior, eating better, exercising more, and doing all the things their doctor keeps telling them they should be doing. That's a big part of why taking a sugar pill is more effective than simply doing nothing.

      the placebo effect has been well documented in clinical trials under controlled conditions. to understand why it works you need to understand the basics of pharmacology, your brain controls your body's functions, drugs effect how your brain responds to those functions, essentially _all_ drugs are fooling your brain. when you take a drug such as amphetamine, the drug tells your brain to produce more serotonin thus, your brain floods the neurons with serotonin allowing your the signals to flow across the synaptic gap (in patients with ADD/ADHD the neurons that fire are stuck also receiving, causing re-uptake of the serotonin thus the receiving neuron gets a "short" signal) thats why when "normal" people take amphetamines they are hyper active and generally happy, they get lots of serotonin, but ADD/ADHD people usually calm down, because they aren't getting short circuited and can concentrate the way their brain was meant to. the point is all drugs fool the brain into taking some action, even tylenol and asprin. sure it may look like fraud, but thats a big part of how medicine works. dosent make it legal fraud though.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    63. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      the point is all drugs fool the brain into taking some action,

      Err .. no. I'm pretty sure that antibiotics attack the bacteria directly, chemotherapy drugs kill cancer cells (more than normal cells), etc.

    64. Re:It's not really homeopathic by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      No, there is more evidence (anecdotal as opposed to scientific) for Bigfoot than there is for homeopathy. I was discussing the placebo effect, which homeopathy (IMO) relies on. There is also more anecdotal evidence for the placebo effect treating "real disease" (as opposed to problems "all in your head") than there is for Bigfoot.

      Thanks! You've made my case for me, better than I could have hoped to :)

      And you have illustrated mine, so my thanks are likewise in order. Don't you just love mutual incomprehension? I knew that stating my opinion about Bigfoot was risky, but I did it anyway because the body of evidence I have reviewed, once all the easily identified and explainable hoaxes are culled, really does point to the existence of a shy, unidentified species of great ape (or something very nearly like it) that lives in deep woods. I'm not going out and attempting to find it and it won't be a huge blow to my conscience should I be wrong, and I'm just as skeptical as you are of claims to have found it. But when I come across evidence that has been vetted but not disproved I don't say, "Well it must still be a hoax because the creature doesn't exist."

      If keeping an open mind and taking a position outside of the mainstream invalidates what someone says, then God help civilization: its progress has historically relied on these oddball perceptions for its advancement. You look back and see reams and reams of studies and data, but you ignore the decidedly unscientific "that's strange..." moments that prompted the studies in the first place.

      If you're at all interested in further exploration of the placebo effect, Radiolab did an episode on it which can be listened to for free at that link. If not, feel free to ignore me =)

    65. Re:It's not really homeopathic by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      you're right, for give me, i should have said there are a wide swath of drugs which act in this way.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    66. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If keeping an open mind and taking a position outside of the mainstream invalidates what someone says

      Ah, yes, the "open mind" defense. I never get tired of hearing that one. It doesn't matter whether it's coming from the 9/11 goof movement, holocaust deniers, miracle-crystal healers, moon-hoaxers, perpetual-motion pushers, or the face-on-mars crowd - they ALL seem to have such open minds! It must be such a drag having people like me constantly demanding evidence.

      As far as can tell, the more you speak about how "open" your mind is the more likely it is that your brains have entirely leaked out. I don't think you actually understand what the phrase "open minded" means. FYI, it doesn't mean rejecting evidence and uncritically accepting every claim that agrees with your preconceived notions.

    67. Re:It's not really homeopathic by JSlope · · Score: 1

      May be these weren't double blind test? Because placebo is more efficient when the doctor in contact with patient believes that drug will work. Whend dorctor doesn't know if he gives placebo or real drug, then it can't influence the patient in one or another direction.

      --
      ResoMail - the alternative secure e-mail system
    68. Re:It's not really homeopathic by sorak · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you are getting your "facts" from, but you should never use that source again. here is the AMA position on the use of placebos. As for your statement that all drugs are psychosomatic, that is just patently rediculous. Another poster had mentioned antibiotics, and cancer drugs. Then there are also blood thinners, such as aspirin, blood clotting agents, insulin, and a wide range. The one example you gave was an antidepressant. I would be surprised to see an antidepressant that worked without some neurochemistry explanation.

      But you are right about one thing. Doctors do often give out placebos. THe AMA is against it, and it is against their code of conduct, because it "may undermine trust, compromise the patient-physician relationship, and result in medical harm to the patient."

      Of course, they do say it is ok, if the patient knows he or she is, or may be, receiving a placebo, but they make it clear that this is not meant to be a substitute for medication.

    69. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Um. Wow.

      No, "placebo" does not mean "no effect", and I would think that everyone knows that. Placebo just means that the "remedy" doesn't actually do anything. A placebo is a trick - nothing more. There's a reason why placebos are only used in situations where their effectiveness is judged subjectively - because in an objective use, such as birth-control, a placebo would quickly show itself to be ineffective in a very distressing manner. When you take a sugar pill you might feel less pain, but you won't be less pregnant.

      But the part of your initial comment that convinced me you were making an attempt at parody was this bit:

      It is such a powerful force they had to construct double blind studies to attempt to factor out this healing force.

      That shows such a complete lack of understanding of science that ... well, I figured it HAD to be parody. My mistake.

      If you want to understand why that sentence looks so stupid, just examine my slight modification of it:

      Dowsing for gold is such an effective technique that they had to construct double blind studies to attempt to factor out this psychic force

      Both sentences are equally accurate ... and equally ludicrous.

    70. Re:It's not really homeopathic by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      It is you who do not understand the placebo effect. It has an objective, measurable outcome. Not just in your head, but in measurable clinical effects. Placebo most emphatically does NOT mean that the remedy does not do anything. It does something, that is why it has an effect.

      Dowsing has shown no effect in scientific studies. Dowsing is utter horse exhaust. I don't know why you are talking about dowsing.

      Placebo, on the other hand, has a statistically significant effect on many clinical variables. I don't know why you are having such a difficult time understanding this. It is part of our entire medical establishment. The placebo effect is a measurable force affecting clinical outcome and is measured, QUANTITATIVELY for crying out loud in most medical trials.

      There are literally millions of studies you could look at, but here is one about caffeine.

      Since you seem a bit dense I will explain it to you. Test subjects were divided into two groups. One group was given caffeine and the other was not. Dopamine was released in the placebo group, showing the classic placebo effect. Dopamine is not in your imagination. Dopamine is measurable. If you are expecting caffeine your brain releases dopamine even if you don't receive the drug at all.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    71. Re:It's not really homeopathic by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      as acknowledged previously yes, i was wrong to state that all drugs function in this way, however a large variety do, including pain relievers and fever reducers etc. The AMA is not an organization that i would use as a definitive answer to anything medically related, but as one opinion among many. it is estimated that only approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of physicians in the US belong to the AMA, furthermore, the AMA certainly doesn't represent physicians in other countries where the level of medical proficiency is at least as high as that in the US, i.e. Switzerland, Germany, Austria et. al. while it is a valid opinion, it is just that, an opinion.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    72. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The placebo effect is observable and quantifiable, but the placebo itself does not do anything. We know this because we can substitute ANY substance, and achieve the same effect. Ergo the placebo effect is caused by something other than the placebo.

      Your argument is similar to saying "wood causes fires". Well, no, it doesn't, because we can replace wood with any number of products and still have fire. Except that your argument is even sillier because wood actually is part of the combustion process when ignited, whereas placebos don't even interact with the body.

      I don't actually expect you to understand the difference, but I thought I'd clarify anyway. I had to make the effort - reading your comments always makes me smile, so the least I could do is try and educate you a bit.

    73. Re:It's not really homeopathic by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      OK now I see the problem! Of course the placebo doesn't do anything, it is clinically inert. The placebo effect is caused by the patient believing they took a medicine. What a perfect example of talking past each other!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    74. Re:It's not really homeopathic by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      lol

      Yeah, I'm glad we got that cleared up :) Cheers.

    75. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, the dosage makes the poison. Arsenic could very well be a good argument for homeopathic drugs. It is never used, because it is toxic in normal uses. But what if you tune it down until it is not toxic anymore? It's powerful stuff, so what possibly positive effects will it have then?

      Of course, it's bullshit if there actually is nothing in there that does anything. But if it does, it is just a drug with a dosage that makes sense. Just like any other drug.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    76. Re:It's not really homeopathic by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Illusion/hallucination. Plain and simple.

      Don't look so shocked. (Don't ask me how I know this. ;)

      It's a natural effect of your brain. People can get lumps because they *imagine* that a bee stung them. They can go blind by thinking they are. They can be completely sure they saw something, that never happened, and that they thought they had never seen, two weeks ago, just because of psychological influence.
      You mouth also waters, when you imagine biting into a juicy ripe sour lemon. (Even my mouth did, while I wrote this.)

      If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. The lump is a reaction, controlled by signals from the brain.
      And your brain is basically a set of connections between triggers, where the connection strengths and trigger levels change with the signals flowing trough them.
      Let the signals flow trough the right pathways, and you can re-wire you brain, so that the eye signals get muted down completely.
      Or you can plant something in there, just by changing the state of the relevant area, with the same method.
      This is very powerful stuff.

      Learn how it influences your daily life. And how you can influence and manipulate it, to make your life better, and you will gain a strong ability.
      I recommend starting with the self-fulfilling prophecy:
      Say that something is like that. Period.
      Then start acting like it, even if you don't believe a word of what you say.
      Soon you will start to expert it to be that way, and will work to make it happen, so your reality does not break.
      And then, some day, it will just be that way. Period. :)

      (But beware of delusional confidence, by not making your inner reality model too rigid and glued together.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. Zicam is not homeopathic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The zinc gluconate is toxic to many bacteria, as well the cells that detect smell in some people, it turns out. But Zicam is not a homeopathic remedy, and was never marketed as such.

    1. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by chefmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      But Zicam is not a homeopathic remedy, and was never marketed as such.

      That's odd... Their website appears to be at odds with your reality.

    2. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, you're right that it's not really homeopathic, but you're wrong about it never being marketed as such. In fact, the word "Homeopathic" appears right on the front of the box, as is plainly visible here.

      However, the concentration of the active ingredient is around 2%, whereas the concentration in a true homeopathic "cure" would be approximately 0%. Basically, they marketed an unproven drug as homeopathic, when it wasn't, in order to get around FDA regulations.

    3. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by fractoid · · Score: 3, Informative
      It may not be marketed as such but on the Zicam website the nasal gel in question is described:

      Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel is an over-the-counter homeopathic nasal gel that provides safe and effective relief from the symptoms of hay fever and other upper respiratory allergies, such as runny nose, sneezing, itchy and watery eyes, nasal congestion, and sinus pressure.

      (Emphasis mine). So they themselves definitely describe it as homeopathic.

      What made me laugh was this later entry in the Q&A:

      Q: Why could it take 1-2 weeks before I notice the effect of Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel?

      Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel begins working from the first time you use it. While it is not understood why consistent use over 1-2 weeks is necessary to see results, clinical research on this product indicate that it may take one to two weeks to see a decrease in symptoms. For best results, use Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel up to one week before contact to known causes of your allergies.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by AardvarkCelery · · Score: 1

      The quote in the Q&A is regarding a different product. The article is about the zinc gluconate gel for colds. Your quote has to do with the allergy gel that does not contain the offending zinc gluconate.

    5. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That answer doesn't sound that strange to me. I was prescribed tretinoin cream yesterday and read through the pamphlet -- the clinical pharmacology section starts with "Although the exact mode of action of tretinoinin is unknown, current evidence suggests..." Not only that, but the included directions hedge quite a bit about how often to use it and what it'll do if it works. If you said that answer was for a prescription medication, I'd have believed you.

    6. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've seen a few alternative medicine companies labeling their snake oil as homeopathic for that purpose. In fact, you could say that they're diluting the term.

    7. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by millennial · · Score: 1

      What you missed is the fact that it takes 1-2 weeks to help you get over the cold, which is exactly how long it could take to get over a really bad cold anyways.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    8. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suspect that the "homeopathic" tag was put on the product to avoid the costs associated with bringing to market a medication that would otherwise have to go through the FDA approval process, a lengthy and costly venture.

      To be honest, with the amount of crap sold on TV ads these days, I would be perfectly happy if the FDA put the kibosh on "natural supplements" and homeopathic remedies. Snake-oil salesmen all. As far as my own research can tell me, most of these products do nothing but make money for the people selling them.

      If the product actually did something, SAFELY, then these people would be trying to get FDA approval as it would greatly increase their credibility. Even after millions of dollars of profit, the makers of Zicam STILL don't seek FDA approval...because they know it wouldn't make it through the process.

    9. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Basically, they marketed an unproven drug as homeopathic, when it wasn't, in order to get around FDA regulations.

      Solution: sue them out of existence, jail their managers and 'scientific' leader and ban all homeopathic products below 5 or 6CH (those above don't contain anything). Those below that must be considered and tested as any drug.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    10. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      What you missed is the fact that it takes 1-2 weeks to help you get over the cold.

      No, it takes 1-2 weeks to relieve you from allergies. Ask anyone who suffers from seasonal allergies, everyone will answer that those do last more than 2 weeks. The idea of starting medication before you expect contact with allergens is also not that silly. For years I was highly allergic to cats (now I have two of my own), and my grandparents had like 4. Every trip to their place was a small sample of hell unless I took some histamine antagonists before leaving home.

    11. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]If the product actually did something, SAFELY, then these people would be trying to get FDA approval as it would greatly increase their credibility. Even after millions of dollars of profit, the makers of Zicam STILL don't seek FDA approval...because they know it wouldn't make it through the process.

      Until this FDA event, they had zero motiviation to seriously consider getting FDA approval: Zicam is easily available everywhere, proving they already had all the credibility that they needed.

    12. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by millennial · · Score: 1

      That's not even relevant to my comment. At all. The GP was comparing "we don't know why it works, but tests show it does" to "we don't know why it works, but tests show it works in exactly the same timeline as you would expect if it does nothing".

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    13. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by radtea · · Score: 1

      Basically, they marketed an unproven drug as homeopathic, when it wasn't, in order to get around FDA regulations.

      Don't confuse "unapproved" with "unproven". They claim to have clinical data demonstrating effectiveness. My own experience as a former cold-sufferer is consistent with their claims. It's true that "data is not the plural of anecdote", but it is also true that "informal observation is the beginning of science."

      You're right to be sceptical, but have a look at their actual data first (I believe it has been published in not-entirely-quack journals.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    14. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder how the hell the law could have a loophole this large in it. Just tag it homeopathic and you don't have to undergo testing, no matter what you put into it?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      But the substance with the 1-2 week time to work is not a cold remedy! Of course it won't cure a cold, that's not what it's meant for!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    16. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      My own experience as a former cold-sufferer is consistent with their claims

      Zicam would have the same effect as any saline based gel delivered in the same manner would. All it did was make it easier to empty your sinuses of mucus. That relief (yay I can breath) is what is being sold, not any actual cold remedy.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    17. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by radtea · · Score: 1

      All it did was make it easier to empty your sinuses of mucus.

      Nope.

      For one, the nasal swabs aren't available in Canada, so I've been using the oral spray for the past six months. I've used the nasal swabs in the past, and both preparations have the same outcome.

      For two, the stuff is maximally effective if you use it at the first sign of symptoms, which for me is almost always a sore throat, not a stuffy nose.

      For three, Zicam does not provide topical relief of symptoms. It drastically reduces, to the extent of almost eliminating, the duration and severity of the cold.

      For four, even the Zicam nasal swabs get no-where near the sinuses if used properly. You apply the disgusting goop to the mucus membranes just inside the nostrils, not deep within the nose.

      This is what gives scepticism a bad name: you are making stuff up to preserve a belief that amounts to nothing more than prejudice.

      You are right to be sceptical, particularly of a drug that falsely markets itself as homeopathic, but wrong to make claims for which you have no evidence whatsoever, such as your incorrect claim as to why I think Zicam works.

      Making up claims without evidence so you can hang on to a deeply held belief is exactly what quacks do. Don't be one. Be an empiricist, not a sceptic.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    18. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by Rycross · · Score: 1

      For three, Zicam does not provide topical relief of symptoms. It drastically reduces, to the extent of almost eliminating, the duration and severity of the cold.

      Oh really? From Zicam's web site:

      Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel begins working from the first time you use it. While it is not understood why consistent use over 1-2 weeks is necessary to see results, clinical research on this product indicate that it may take one to two weeks to see a decrease in symptoms. For best results, use Zicam Allergy Relief Nasal Gel up to one week before contact to known causes of your allergies.

      1-2 weeks is the typical duration of a cold. If it takes 1-2 weeks to "see results," then it hasn't done anything in the first place. It seems that Zycam's makeers disagree with you that it reduces the duration.

      It's a bit moot because Zycam isn't in homeopathic-level dilutions anyway (that is, there is actual measurable quantities of active ingredient in Zycam). Homeopathic medicine has been shown to be ineffective by proper scientific double-blind studies. This isn't surprising because homeopathic medicine is water.

    19. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      Only a fool would consider advertising a means to assess the credibility of medications.

      Where else is this "credibility" you speak of coming from?

      Citation, please?

  4. Why not give the FDA full control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'm trying to think of a downside to making all medications and supplements require FDA approval. If everything on the counter had to be certified as both safe and effective, it'd kill the snakeoi-ahem, supplement, industry. But would we really lose out on any potential groundbreaking drugs? Has anyone ever heard of an OTC supplement that went on to revolutionize medicine because it got to market before the big bad government could look too closely at it?

    1. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by hedwards · · Score: 0

      The downside is that it would require regulating corporations, and a substantial portion of the populace is deathly afraid of that. Ironically enough, people can and do die because of the opposition to proper regulation.

      It's also expensive which would require businesses to pay more or for the government to grow. Also things which the same portion of the populace is terrified of.

      Personally, I'm fine if people want to injure themselves in that fashion, but I want to be able to know that anything I use is as safe as possible. Realistically we can't test everything sufficiently to be absolutely certain, but we can test in a prudent manner to at least uncover the more obvious risks.

    2. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to think of a downside to making all medications and supplements require FDA approval.

      The downside is that the process produces both:

        - long delays (during which people suffer and perhaps die) and:

        - enormous costs (which keep some safe-and-effective drugs from reaching the market and raise the costs of medications which DO make it through the gauntlet - and must pay for both themselves and their share of the ones that fail).

      When the legislation was first proposed it was estimated that if it added six months to the introduction of new medications it was a net loss. Now it takes years and tens of millions of dollars per new drug that starts testing.

      One estimate of these costs - in a Wall Street Journal headline - is that the delay required for approving the use of Beta Blockers in the US to prevent secondary heart attacks (after they were approved for that in Europe) resulted in 100,000 deaths.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm trying to think of a downside to making all medications and supplements require FDA approval.

      Where to begin?

      If you can't imagine that freedom is a viable option, then have you considered the thousands of people who die every year waiting for the bureaucrats to allow them to use the medicine they need?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Or you know, people can and do die because a cure can't be tested fast enough to be 100% certain that it works, however if it cures one life, its worth it. I mean, if someone was dying of cancer and had only a year to live, took a drug, it worked temporarily and they die 10 years later because of something the drug did, thats still better (no one can live forever). Plus, just look at the "miracle berry" case, where the FDA was essentially bought by the sugar industry that prevented a potentially useful item to market.

      A free market regulates itself if it is free enough.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I think it's a matter of finding where you can maximize the saving of lives. Either extreme would result in more people dying than somewhere in the middle. Absolutely no restriction would result in dangerous drugs being released to he public, or more likely, drugs that simply do nothing at all. At the other extreme, full government control will be too costly and take too long and people will die waiting for drugs that we know work to get approved. Arguing that we need no regulation makes as little sense as arguing that the government should run the entire thing top to bottom. Both notions are absurd.

      Now, where in the middle is the life saving power of medicine maximized? I do not know the answer to that.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    6. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Nightspirit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because before the FDA I could grow my own poppies for pain, brew my own ephedra tea for sinus infections and use whatever the earth gave me for whatever I desire. Take chamomile tea. According to you, the FDA (or someone) would have to prove it is safe and effective to be sold, essentially meaning that it would disappear overnight as no one would spend the money to do that. Its a slippery slope from being able to grow and use my own medicine to Equilibrium, where I have to take my government mandated dose every day and nothing else is available.

    7. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Absolutely no restriction would result in dangerous drugs being released to he public, or more likely, drugs that simply do nothing at all.

      This is the proper realm for tort law, and criminal penalties for fraud or reckless endangerment. If someone sells an ineffective product, then sue them based on your reliance upon any false claims they make in their advertising. If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.

      What I object to is the premise that our bodies are the property of the state, and that the state is entitled to override our own decisions as to what drugs we choose to use.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by nbauman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm trying to think of a downside to making all medications and supplements require FDA approval.

      The downside is that the process produces both:

      - long delays (during which people suffer and perhaps die) and:

      - enormous costs (which keep some safe-and-effective drugs from reaching the market and raise the costs of medications which DO make it through the gauntlet - and must pay for both themselves and their share of the ones that fail).

      When the legislation was first proposed it was estimated that if it added six months to the introduction of new medications it was a net loss. Now it takes years and tens of millions of dollars per new drug that starts testing.

      One estimate of these costs - in a Wall Street Journal headline - is that the delay required for approving the use of Beta Blockers in the US to prevent secondary heart attacks (after they were approved for that in Europe) resulted in 100,000 deaths.

      That was a Wall Street Journal editorial page essay -- which is a completely different thing from the reliable WSJ news stories.

      If I recall correctly (can't find it on the WSJ's lame search engine) the author of that essay was a doctor who gave up the practice of medicine to work on Wall Street, and then became an FDA official under the Bush Administration. He has a right to give up medicine for finance, and work for a Republican administration, but it shows the free-market ideology that he's coming from.

      Yes, it takes longer to approve drugs, during which the people who would have been helped by those drugs have to do without and in theory might die sooner. (BTW, there are very few "life-saving" drugs these days. Most of those drugs at best extend life by a few months. A drug that extends the life of a lung cancer or colon cancer patient by 3 months is a big deal.)

      But when they put drugs on the market without enough testing, as they did when free-market conservatives ruled the FDA, they sold drugs that did more harm than good, like Vioxx and fen-phen.

      So less regulation actually killed people rather than saving lives.

      If you have a bunch of useful drugs, mixed up with a bunch of harmful drugs, and you can't tell which is which, those drugs can overall do more harm than good. You can't just throw drugs out on the free market and wait to see whether they save more people than they kill.

      You can't figure it out from economic theory alone. You have to look at the facts. Before we had regulation, drug companies used to sell useless drugs that would kill people. When the Republicans cut back on regulations, drug companies sold more useless drugs that kill people. Regulation saves more lives than they cost.

    9. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Urza9814 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That depends on what they're considering proof. I mean, I have great results with things like ecchinacia, which I believe are required to carry warnings that there is absolutely no proof that they do anything at all. Hell, even the best OTC sleep aids I've ever used (Valerian) are required to carry a warning that they have had no real FDA research. I mean, sure, we probably wouldn't lose anything more than just convenience drugs, but it would take quite a while for the research to go through and prove anything at all. And you have questions like, if it seems to work on 1% of the population, does that count? And would there even be enough money to make it worth getting these things certified? I mean at under $10 a bottle, I'm sure these things are profitable, but nowhere near the $20+ per pill mark that most prescription drugs hit...or the $1+ per pill of most OTC drugs. Most of the herbal and homeopathic stuff works out to be closer to $0.20 a pill. Even generic brand cold OTC cold pills tend to be several times that.

    10. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by dloose · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I just can't help being contrarian...

      Or you know, people can and do die because a cure can't be tested fast enough to be 100% certain that it works, however if it cures one life, its worth it.

      Even if it takes 10 others?

      I mean, if someone was dying of cancer and had only a year to live, took a drug, it worked temporarily and they die 10 years later because of something the drug did, thats still better (no one can live forever).

      What if they die 2 hours later?

      Plus, just look at the "miracle berry" case, where the FDA was essentially bought by the sugar industry that prevented a potentially useful item to market.

      Miracle berries are shit. They make everything taste cloyingly sweet for at least an hour after you eat them.

      A free market regulates itself if it is free enough.

      Yes, and all people are completely rational actors with perfect information...

    11. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Even if it takes 10 others?

      10 others that know that it is untested and has no guarantee that it will work? Sure. Now, of course even without the FDA there is still some liability if they didn't properly test it on animals first, but if they knew the risks but still took it, its their problem.

      What if they die 2 hours later?

      ...Of what? Unless you were giving them a toxin, massively overdosing them, or they had an allergic reaction there are few cases that someone would die two hours later. People have allergic reactions to all kinds of "safe" medicines, with some, yes they could die. Both the toxins and overdoses could be charged as fraud.

      Yes, and all people are completely rational actors with perfect information...

      If the information is wrong, sue the manufacturers. There is no reason that a government that protected against fraud and force could not be a modern, free and productive society. If people aren't acting rationally on it, its their problem not society's.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I think it's worthwhile that we have some kind of system in place that stops such dangerous drugs and remedies from reaching the public at all, BEFORE anyone is harmed/defrauded. It shouldn't have to come to a legal battle because those dangerous products should have never made it to the pharmacy shelf.

      And I fully agree that our bodies are not property of the state. I am for the decriminalization of all drugs, I just think they should be regulated like we do with alcohol and tobacco.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    13. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jra · · Score: 1

      > but nowhere near the $20+ per pill mark that most prescription drugs hit

      *most*?

      About 15 years ago, I got prescribed Tagamet. Its fourth generation child, Famotidine, is now 130 for $9 at Sam's Club, but at the time, it was $1/pill bid.

      That was fairly expensive as drugs went, at the time.

      If you have handy even *10* examples of $20 *per pill* for something one takes, say, daily, I'd be interested to hear them.

      Ridiculous hyperbole against things like Big Pharma makes their life *easier*...

    14. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by matria · · Score: 1

      Folic acid (a B vitamin) has been used for at least 70 years in the farming industry to prevent neural tube birth defects in cattle, but it's only in the last few years that it was acknowledged by the "official" medical industry that it does the same thing in people. These birth defects become more likely the older the mother is; supplementing with folic acid prevents them.

    15. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "If the information is wrong, sue the manufacturers."

      I say my medicine has a high chance of curing you of a specific problem, you take it, and it doesn't work. Prove I lied.

      Medicine is by nature semi-unpredictable. We're dealing with a huge number of variable genes within the patient, many of which we don't understand, combined with a huge number of variable genes within a huge number of bacteria/virus (not sure if viruses qualify as having genes, but they certainly have RNA, which is variable) within the patient, combined with a ton of random chance factors (the pill just happens to land in a much higher PH bit of acid in the stomach than normal and is partially dissolved or something) and a good helping of head scratching about whether you have a certain problem or a different one with similar symptoms. We've made a lot of advances, but the day when we can have all the needed information about how a medicine will affect people without hugely expensive testings is way off in the future, so we need those government bodies to force the testing or we may as well be using an astrological chart to determine what medicine to take.

      I'm normally a free market proponent but in the case of medicine there are simply too many variables to expect anyone, much less the average consumer, to know enough about the subject to make an informed decision.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    16. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "If someone sells an ineffective product,"

      Prove it's ineffective. Perhaps you simply have an odd body chemistry, or some chemical you're taking (food or medicine wise) is affecting the medicine in unpredictable ways. Entire group of people unaffected? I'm sure there's something they have in common that the company can claim wasn't present in their studies that could be the cause of the lack of healing, or many such things.

      There are too many variables to prove conclusively that a medicine doesn't work, thus courts are worthless for stopping them. Just look at how long Homeopathy has lasted with tons of scientific (chemical) data saying it shouldn't do anything, for ever person who says a quack drug doesn't work 10 others will subscribe to the placebo effect and state conclusively that it cured them.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    17. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.

      Which does the patient/victim/corpse a WHOLE lot of good.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    18. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's worthwhile that we have some kind of system in place that stops such dangerous drugs and remedies from reaching the public at all, BEFORE anyone is harmed/defrauded.

      Ever heard of the Underwriters' Laboratories?

      Personally, I'd prefer to have the safety and efficacy of products I buy vetted by an organization that has something to lose if they're wrong, than by a bureaucracy which will probably see its budget increased if they fuck up.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Prove it's ineffective.

      That's what lawyers, courts, and juries are for.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    20. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Prove it's ineffective.

      You can't prove that absolutely. However, you can prove that something is as effective as a placebo, or even less effective (i.e. actually harmful). All you need is doing a study with an appropriate sample size.

    21. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      We do. If it's classed as a medicine (i.e. has clinical effect) then it's highly regulated.
      If it's classed as homeopathy, it's classed along with fairy sprinkles and not regulated.
      The problem is that here we have something being marketed as homeopathic which clearly isn't. If it has a clinical effect (bad or good) then the FDA will regulate and mandate their exhaustive testing.

    22. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      This is the proper realm for tort law,

      I'm sure your survivors will be thrilled.

      If someone sells an ineffective product, then sue them based on your reliance upon any false claims they make in their advertising.

      If you're still alive. And live long enough to see the end of the lawsuit.

      If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.

      What if someone sells you mustard gas as a cancer remedy?

      What I object to is the premise that our bodies are the property of the state, and that the state is entitled to override our own decisions as to what drugs we choose to use.

      Most people, unfortunately, aren't smart enough to understand mechanisms like resistance formation. If anyone could pop antibiotics whenever they feel like it, then soon no one would be able to effectively fight an infection with them. Is that what you're proposing?

    23. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      and you could do this:http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm.
      Check out Bayer's ad for Heroin, or the Cocaine Toothdrops.

    24. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can imagine that, but what does the medical insurance industry have to do with the limitation of freedom? ;^)

      Too glib, I know. Let's get serious.

      Where to begin? It is a common fact that might makes right, even though we don't wish it to be so, and right now individuals do not have enough might to even keep themselves healthy in light of a variety of mighty groups, often run by individuals shielded from liability and perfectly willing and able to start-up another corrupt company, who willingly mislead them and/or frustrate collection on benefits they have paid for. When the 'bad guys' do get their comeuppance, the lawyers, in their own groups, make the bulk of the profits.

      Occasionally, a few outlier individuals will win the lottery, but it's really one they didn't want to play in the first place, at the cost of their health, and a meaningful settlement is only marginally more likely than winning the 'Lotto.' Most never see court because no legal group sees enough profit in taking the case.

      Any mitigating factor against unjustified, unbalanced collective action curtailing individual liberty, which includes governmental, corporate, legal defense funds, and basically any large group of people who can tell an individual to go pound sand against his just rights to pursue his own happiness is a strike against tyranny. The difference between a functional government and the other groups and would-be tyrants is that governmental tyrants answer to all the people, not just those with money.

      And no, I don't think the US government is functional right now, so if you're argument is don't give them any more power because they have demonstrated that they don't know what to do with it, I'm with you.

      But "freedom?" Really?

      'Anarchy' is your viable option. It's not what I would call freedom. Even the founders did not call for freedom. They called for liberty. What you hold up as freedom always ends up as might makes right, which is tyranny.

      We need a functional government to preserve liberty.

      --
      Toro

    25. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Realistically we can't test everything sufficiently to be absolutely certain, but we can test in a prudent manner to at least uncover the more obvious risks.

      Yep, who would have though to test for the possibility that a product that you put up your nose might damage your nose!

    26. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of the Underwriters' Laboratories?

      Yes, but they seem to specialize in testing durable goods, not food and drugs. Although I could be mistaken on this.

      Personally, I'd prefer to have the safety and efficacy of products I buy vetted by an organization that has something to lose if they're wrong, than by a bureaucracy which will probably see its budget increased if they fuck up.

      -jcr

      Funny, because I'd rather see food and medical products vetted by an organization without a profit motive entirely. Otherwise, you'll end-up with a situatation like Arthur-Anderson and Enron, or more recently the private bond rating agencies (how was charging more for a bond recieving a higher ratings not considered a form of instutionalized bribery?). As far as I'm concerned it doesn't have to be a government agency, but in an imperfect world with imperfect people that seems to be the most effective way to fund and maintain such an organization.

    27. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Copid · · Score: 1

      That's what lawyers, courts, and juries are for.

      Weren't we just talking about how to make the system more efficient and accurate?

      I believe that what you've just designed is a system in which ineffective drugs flood the marketplace because it's too expensive (comparing the cost of the bottle to the likelihood of victory and the lack of damages) to sue them out of existence. We see this in... well... the herbal and homeopathic drug industry right now.

      I don't have hard data in front of me, but I would guess that if you randomly grab a bottle of "medicine" from this unregulated part of the industry, your odds of grabbing something that actually treats your ailment are probably less than 50/50. If they were producing really useful remedies on a short timeline, then I'd be willing to consider adopting their model. As it stands, going that direction doesn't seem to have a lot to recommend it.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    28. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      You'll note that Arthur Andersen was basically destroyed for their Enron fuck-up. They didn't get more money and get to continue their incompetence.

      The UL's stock in trade is their reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. If someone wants to make substandard electrical outlets and bribe the UL to approve them, the UL would be risking their very existence, on top of the liability if anyone is hurt using the defective product.

      I'd rather have some organization like a council of certified pharmacists testing and approving drugs, than leave it up to the FDA. Those idiots actually approve of injecting botulism toxin into your face to treat wrinkles, while they keep anti-clotting drugs that can save the lives of heart attack victims off the market.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    29. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Brataccas · · Score: 1

      it doesn't have to be a government agency, but in an imperfect world with imperfect people that seems to be the most effective way to fund and maintain such an organization

      Based on what real world example? Why would an organization subject to ever-changing political whims, staffed by employees with union protected jobs, and whose decisions are subject to every politician's pocket lobbyist be more trustworthy than one that lives and dies by its reputation?

      Arthur Andersen messed up and paid the price. The bond-rating agencies were corrupted and are now paying the price. How many government agencies have been shut down due to corruption or incompetence? How many government agencies have increased their budgets and staff DESPITE their track-record of incompetence?

      No human-built institution is perfect, public or private, but I'd prefer to put my trust in the one that depends on its reputation over one that depends on politics every time.

    30. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Weren't we just talking about how to make the system more efficient and accurate?

      Courts are for exceptional circumstances. People who actually seek to harm others, or who do so through depraved indifference are exceptional; that's why they're big news stories when they happen.

      What happens now is the FDA has usurped the power to decide what medications I can use. There's no constitutional authority for that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    31. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Courts are for exceptional circumstances. People who actually seek to harm others, or who do so through depraved indifference are exceptional; that's why they're big news stories when they happen.

      And of course, anything but that is unexceptional and doesn't get policed. So we end up with a huge pool of cures that are ineffective at best with (perhaps) a few legitimate remedies scattered among them--just like we see in the herbal/homeopathic area.

      Once that starts happening, the next problem is that legitimate players who used to spend a lot of money putting out well-tested and effective medicine have to decide whether it's worth it. Putting out real medicine is expensive, and when you're competing with people who put eel farts in a jar, call it a cure for cancer, and sell it for $9.99, there isn't a lot of incentive to keep it up. So basically, we all end up free to choose blindly among a whole lot of quackery to see if we can find something that works.

      I suppose the whole thing would be a boon to pharmacists as we'd have to go and consult them for everything to figure out which medicines are likely to work and which ones are downright dangerous, but that doesn't seem like a major win. As flawed as the system we currently have is, at least the signal to noise ratio on the pharmacy shelves is high. Getting new cures to market fast doesn't help a lot if consumers can't figure out which ones actually work.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    32. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Putting out real medicine is expensive,

      It's a lot more expensive than it needs to be, and you can thank the costs of FDA red tape for that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    33. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      It's a lot more expensive than it needs to be, and you can thank the costs of FDA red tape for that.

      So why do you think that drug companies would reduce their prices if it was cheaper, instead of making more profit? After all, making as much profit as possible for their owners is why they exist in the first place.

    34. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Copid · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more expensive than it needs to be, and you can thank the costs of FDA red tape for that.

      What some people call "red tape" other people call "testing the product." What percentage of the FDA costs are going to filling out paperwork and what percentage are going to mandated clinical trials?

      You make it sound like removing FDA certification will reduce costs because you're saving on a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. The reality is that most of the "savings" would come from not having to pay to do large scale testing with expensive labs, scientists, and medical personnel. That's where the real money goes, and that's probably the last place we want our drug savings to come from.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    35. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      That's where the real money goes, and that's probably the last place we want our drug savings to come from.

      And in a real-world scenario, any savings on development and testing would go to profits and lawsuits rather than reducing the price of the drug while it's still covered by patents.

    36. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      The reality is that most of the "savings" would come from not having to pay to do large scale testing with expensive labs, scientists, and medical personnel.

      Want to explain how you spend $800 million on clinical tests?

      It doesn't cost anything like that to go through the approval process in France, Germany, Japan, etc.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    37. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Want to explain how you spend $800 million [healthcare-economist.com] on clinical tests?

      I would, but the link you posted pretty much already has. You do several phases of clinical trials for efficacy and short and long term side effects over the course of 7.5 years. You then perform your estimate of the cost by rolling the cost failed drugs into that $800M total (not sure what percentage of them fail, but if it's a lot, that skews the number pretty heavily) and then you assume a 9% cost of capital, which results in a final number about twice what the actual dollar outlay is.

      So the short answer is, you don't actually spend $800M on clinical tests. You spend less than half that (probably significantly less, given the number of drugs that fail partway through).

      My question to you is, how do you think they'd piss away $800M doing anything but expensive clinical tests? Paperwork? I find it much easier to explain an $800M hole in a budget if I can point to doctors, hospitals, insurance, and lab facilities than if the only thing I can appeal to is, "I have *so much* paperwork to do. It's crazy!"

      It doesn't cost anything like that to go through the approval process in France, Germany, Japan, etc.

      Really? How much does it cost? Do those estimates also include the cost of failed drugs and assume a 9% cost of capital?

      Further, don't those countries also have rigorous drug approval standards? How does that support your contention that we're better off without any government body approving drugs? If true, it sounds more like an argument to figure out what we're doing wrong with our regulatory system than an argument to scrap it.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    38. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by jcr · · Score: 1

      So the short answer is, you don't actually spend $800M on clinical tests.

      My point exactly. I've seen a photograph once of a forklift palette of papers which was the entirety of one drug company's submissions to the FDA to get a drug approved.

      My own experience with the FDA was many years ago when I was working on a karyotyping system. It could have cost $25K or so, including the computer, the microscope, and the camera, but with the cost of obtaining FDA approval, we just couldn't make the numbers work and bring it to market.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    39. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      My point exactly. I've seen a photograph once of a forklift palette of papers which was the entirety of one drug company's submissions to the FDA to get a drug approved.

      That still doesn't explain your bogus interpretation of the $800M figure.

      And it's kind of ironic seeing someone argue a libertarian point of view using the labor theory of value - "just reduce the production cost and the price for the product will go down". It doesn't work that way, if you reduce the production cost, the price will stay pretty much the same and profits will go up. Unless you assume that drug companies work for the greater good instead of their bottom line ... which they don't, unless forced by people with guns.

    40. Re:Why not give the FDA full control? by Copid · · Score: 1

      My point exactly. I've seen a photograph once of a forklift palette of papers which was the entirety of one drug company's submissions to the FDA to get a drug approved.

      I'm really not sure how you get that from my response or from the document you linked. Do you know what is meant by "cost of capital"? Let me clarify: If I spend $100 on something that should cost $100, but I then claim that it "cost me" $200 because I could have spent that money on another $100 item that would have yielded me a $100 return, is the question of how I "spent" $200 on a $100 item a sensible one? What if I said that I spent $400 on it because I got scammed a few times when I tried to buy the $100 item, so I rolled those failures into the total cost as well?

      Think of it this way: Can any rational efficient firm actually manage to spend (as in, pay money out of pocket) $800M filling out a palette of paperwork? Unless you define actually doing the research as part of "paperwork" the value is way overblown.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  5. Works both ways by vigmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

    Homoeopathic medication consists of almost only inactive ingredients. The so-called active ingredients are typically diluted beyond the point of having any real effect. In this case, that could be an excellent defense for Matrixx.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd23gBkhf9A

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:Works both ways by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1
      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Works both ways by oneirophrenos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Homoeopathic medication consists of almost only inactive ingredients.

      Well the active ingredients can actually have pharmacological effects, whether beneficial or adverse, but like you said the point is that they are often diluted so much that there is not a single molecule of the active ingredient left in the solution. However, there are different dilution ratios used, and some products actually aren't diluted enough for the effects to disappear, which can be dangerous as apparently was the case with this particular "medicine".

    3. Re:Works both ways by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The notation for homeopathic dilution is #X where 1/(10^#) is the percent concentration of the "active" ingredient. Typical strengths of 10X or even 100X are so small that they have no effect. In Ziacam, however, the active ingredient is Zinc, and the dilution is 2X. A 1% solution isn't dilute enough to completely discount effects when you're spraying it into your nose several times a day for several weeks.

      Basically, zicam only calls itself homeopathic (and it may have other "ingredients" diluted to homeopathic amounts), it isn't *actually* homeopathic. Calling yourself homeopathic when you're not is crazy enough that I had to verify this a few years ago...

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    4. Re:Works both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - homeopathy always dilutes beyond the point of no active ingredients left.

      In this case, it seems to be the addition of zinc that was causing the problem.

  6. If I hadn't used so much Zicam Cold Remedy.... by xiao_haozi · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I hadn't used so much Zicam Cold Remedy I would say this smells fishy.

  7. Anosmia? by teh+moges · · Score: 0

    Anosmia? You know, I always thought it was very funny that losing your sense of smell was called anosmia. "Anos-mia", you know, like "schnoz-mia." Don't you find that very funny?

    1. Re:Anosmia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "My dog has no nose."

      "How does he smell?"

      "Awful!"

    2. Re:Anosmia? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I read it as "a-nose-MIA". A nose, missing in action.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:Anosmia? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but not as funny as rhinoplasty.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Anosmia? by jra · · Score: 1

      Not particularly.

      Spider Robinson didn't either, but he still managed to win a Hugo with a story on this topic, "By Any Other Name", which was expanded into a novel called _Telempath_.

    5. Re:Anosmia? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      What a shame that nobody else got the Scrubs reference. Awesome btw, it was the first thing I remembered too

  8. Re:Fucking idiots by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems to be still on sale though:

    http://www.google.com/products?q=zicam

    Quick, buy it, pretend that you lost a sense of smell (let me see them prove otherwise) and then wait for a nice settlement check. Just kidding, that would be dishonest.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  9. Repeat by Foxxxy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since when did Slashdot become CNN's day after repeat? Must be a slow geek week as this isn't the first repeat

    Zicam

    1. Re:Repeat by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is a news aggregation site. It doesnt generate the content, it aggregates it, hence it will ALWAYS be behind at least one source.

  10. Pull it off the market by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This product needs to be removed from the market. I'd like to see stricter controls on things like this. Anything that attempts to cure or prevent disease needs to be evaluated and tested by the FDA. All supplements, vitamins, these cold prevention products should all have to shown to be safe and do what they claim BEFORE they can be sold.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This product needs to be removed from the market. I'd like to see stricter controls on things like this. Anything that attempts to cure or prevent disease needs to be evaluated and tested by the FDA. All supplements, vitamins, these cold prevention products should all have to shown to be safe and do what they claim BEFORE they can be sold.

      While we are at it, lets pull off the market chemical substances which are known to cause bodily harm that have nearly no medicinal value off the market:

      Alcoholic beverages
      Cigarettes

      Disclosing the risks isn't enough... no. We need the government to tell us what we are and are not allowed to put into our bodies some more.

    2. Re:Pull it off the market by geekboy642 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you genuinely claiming to be too stupid to tell the difference between a curative and a vice? Here's a hint, on the tobacco label, there's generally a warning saying "Tobacco will kill you". On this zinc "medicine", there's no warning label saying "Warning: will permanently disfigure you", and the manufacturer peddles it as being both safe and effective.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    3. Re:Pull it off the market by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      For the record, I think all drug prohibition should end and I am against the "war on drugs". But I am not a wing-nut libertarian who thinks the market will adequately regulate those products. If they were not forced to by the government alcohol and tobacco companies wouldn't disclose the dangers and would make products far more dangerous than they already are.

      Furthermore, alcohol does exactly what it's intended to do and when used responsibly is perfectly safe, and in certain forms and doses may even be beneficial. Also, the risks are well understood, documented, and labeled. And when discussing alcohol you can't ignore the intoxicating effects which are considered desirable by much of the population. A similar case can be made for tobacco. I don't hear anyone clamoring to lose their sense of smell permanently because they used a product they thought was safe to prevent a cold.

      There are nuances to the situation that you seem reluctant to recognize.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so basically we're allowe d to do what we want to our own bodies so long as such actions are 'well documented, labeled, and understood' by stuffy bureaucrats? I don't know what country you're from, but in america, this would not go down well. it's already bad enough here.

    5. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Anything that attempts to cure or prevent disease needs to be evaluated and tested by the FDA.

      But Zicam "has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to âdiagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

    6. Re:Pull it off the market by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh...we already do it with alcohol and tobacco. Check your beer can, it says you should drive or operate machinery, and your pack of Marlboro 100s warn that they cause lung cancer. I'm saying legalize other drugs and apply this same standard.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    7. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a problem there.

      The FDA will not say that citrus fruits will cure/prevent scurvy. Even though it is known that vitamin C will do just that.

      Do we then have to have FDA approval for citrus for treating scurvy?

      You think that the FDA is the answer? Look how much money has changed hands and gotten the FDA to sign off on them saying that drug A is safe.

      To name a few:
      Vioxx
      Omniflox
      Rezulin
      Fen-Phen and Redux
      PPA (phenylpropanolamine)

      'A drug that is approved is said to be "safe and effective when used as directed."'

      Yep! All FDA approved. EAT UP!!!! The FDA said they were safe.

      People bought them and started having problems (dying is a pretty serious problem).

      YES, the FDA does an OK job. But it does screw up.

      And there are drugs in Canada and the UK, France, Germany, etc. that have been in use MANY years that the FDA won't touch. WTF?! Its not like we're talking some third world countries here.

      I wonder how many of these "approved" drugs would make it to market if criminal charges started hitting those who signed off on the drugs.

      The FDA's failures are many! Don't just put blind faith into that government organization.

    8. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to ban the possesion, sale and consumption of dihydrogen oxide - It also causes death..... Idiot.

    9. Re:Pull it off the market by millennial · · Score: 1

      Their own website says it *IS* regulated by the FDA.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    10. Re:Pull it off the market by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      What's funny about this comment, and this whole discussion, is how the American public regards the FDA. I've had this discussion before with other friends who were avidly interested in homeopathic medicine and very upset that the packaging had to include all the weasel words of "this product may reduce (symptoms) but these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" sort.

      The FDA was established in the aftermath of a number of food additive scandals, particularly the publishing of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", where he asserted that the meatpacking industry regularly dumped sawdust, talc, and other bulk materials into processed meat, and sometimes left people who'd fallen into meatprocessing machinery go through the processing system and end up in the meat. The US public demanded that the government get into the food regulation business, which neither the food industry nor the government particularly wanted, but after enormous public pressure, the Federal government finally set up the FDA as a regulatory agency rather than just the food chemistry research group it had been formerly.

      Once that was in place, the drug industry moved to change how it worked to raise the cost of entry: by working with the FDA to set up very rigorous drug-testing specifications, they made it very difficult for new entrants into the field. So in the 1970's, during the rise of the alternative lifestyle movement, it was basically impossible to get anything in the way of alternative medicines on the market, any market: you couldn't even sell herbs from the trunk of your VW microbus without running the risk of getting arrested.

      So, again, there was an enormous amount of public pressure on the Federal government to change how things worked, so Congress changed what the FDA could regulate to create an exemption for alternative medicines, by allowing them to be sold if they used weasel words, essentially: if they were sold as just herbs, with non-binding advice on what they might be useful for treating.

      With that established, lots of companies moved into that space, and are still selling things that do have known pharmacological effects, as alternative medicines. But they're doing it under laws that were established by massive public demand, demand that still exists, so it's a sort of no-win situation for the Federal government.

      The stuff in question is specifically not marketed as an attempt to cure or prevent disease, it's just marketed as a treatment that may alleviate symptoms or words to that effect. But that's a sham because everyone using it knows that the company intends it to cure or prevent a disease.

      If you rigorously force drug manufacturers to show what they're producing are A: safe, and B: effective at doing what they claim, you'll cut out enormous swathes of alternative medicine because it costs too much (and many medicines *aren't* safe, even though they're effective: aspirin wouldn't pass current FDA certification tests.) If you don't force drug manufacturers to live up to those standards, you get what we see here: a drug that has a nasty, dangerous, permanent side-effect. But at the end of the day, most effective drugs *do* have occasional nasty, dangerous, permanent side-effects.

      I would like to see more rigorous regulation of the alternative medicine field, because there are some very scary things being sold and used. However, requiring that drugs be safe restricts the market to near-uselessness. (No anti-cancer drug is anything like 'safe'.)

      We need something between what we have now, and "safe".

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And FDA Approval is going to make pharmaceuticals safe?
      How many other Vioxx type court decisions {http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/03/02.php} have to be handed down before the majority of people realize that "FDA Approved" is not an immediate certainty, nor has it ever been, of real safety.
      Here's also an L.A. Times article relating some of the problems that have occured with the FDA
      http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/02/business/fi-biogen2

    12. Re:Pull it off the market by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      This product needs to be removed from the market. I'd like to see stricter controls on things like this. Anything that attempts to cure or prevent disease needs to be evaluated and tested by the FDA. All supplements, vitamins, these cold prevention products should all have to shown to be safe and do what they claim BEFORE they can be sold.

      On a related topic, have you ever wondered why drugs (especially non-generics) are so ungodly expensive in America?

      The process of getting a new drug researched, developed, tested, and evaluated, combined with the number of failed drugs that the successful drugs needs to pay for, means that we're getting reasonably safe and effective drugs, but we're paying through our noses for them.

      If we had less FDA controls, the price of medicine would go down, and more people would benefit from modern medicine. A certain number would also be damaged by the reduced controls, but I think it would be a net win. On the safety/cost spectrum, we're way to the side of high-cost and higher-safety. Reasonably, we should move it back toward a more balanced risk/benefit ratio.

      But nobody wants more Thalidomide babies, so this won't happen. Even if the FDA fails a lot more than we think it does - many, many of our first line drugs have black box warnings on them now.

      I think one cheap solution (that will never happen) is to allow Europeans to serve as our human test subjects. They have lots of drugs there not approved for FDA use. Allow the safety data from their citizens to count as safety tests, and we could probably reap significant benefits - cheaper drugs and (arguably) better drug safety.

    13. Re:Pull it off the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about time we also had a look at ALL alternative medicine. As Richard Dawkins correctly stated, the only reason a medicine is 'alternative' is because it hasn't been proven. If it is proven it ceases to be alternative and simply becomes medicine.

      This includes homeopathy, chiropractors, bio-magnets and any other tat that people insist on selling as effective remedies.

    14. Re:Pull it off the market by Copid · · Score: 1

      Disclosing the risks isn't enough... no. We need the government to tell us what we are and are not allowed to put into our bodies some more.

      I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the box had a warning on it similar to cigarettes: "Warning: This will destroy your sense of smell and has not been proven to fix your symptoms." Right now, it's more like booby-trapped medicine boxes.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    15. Re:Pull it off the market by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      On a related topic, have you ever wondered why drugs (especially non-generics) are so ungodly expensive in America?

      Because the drug makers can charge whatever they want for them, as long as the patent lasts?

      The process of getting a new drug researched, developed, tested, and evaluated, combined with the number of failed drugs that the successful drugs needs to pay for, means that we're getting reasonably safe and effective drugs, but we're paying through our noses for them.

      Yes. And before there were rules like that, you were paying with corpses and body parts for them. Literally.

      If we had less FDA controls, the price of medicine would go down, and more people would benefit from modern medicine.

      No, you'd have bigger profits for the drug companies, because they can charge exactly the same price while paying much less for R&D. But nobody wants more Thalidomide babies, so this won't happen.

      Why do you think that the US had so few cases (seventeen) of babies crippled by thalidomide, compared to a _few fscking thousand_ in, say, Germany? _Because_ there were clinical tests with the stuff in the US, and all of the cases happened during the trial, so the drug was never marketed as a "safe" anti-emetic for pregnant women.

    16. Re:Pull it off the market by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Because the drug makers can charge whatever they want for them, as long as the patent lasts?

      Because you live in a fantasy world where drug costs are set independent of R&D costs, and have to be set high enough to make up for all the vast majority of drugs which fail to make it to market? Look at the cost of brand name drugs versus generics some time.

      >>Yes. And before there were rules like that, you were paying with corpses and body parts for them. Literally.

      I didn't suggest eliminating all controls. If we could look at case studies on European-approved drugs that have been out for, say, 10 years and use that as a basis to cheaply approve them in America, it'd probably help. (In the case of Thalidomide, a case study analysis on it would have been enough to not get it FDA approved, and probably yanked from European markets as well.)

    17. Re:Pull it off the market by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Because you live in a fantasy world where drug costs are set independent of R&D costs,

      No, you live in a fantasy world where drug makers work for the greater good instead of their bottom line. They will charge the amount that makes them the most profit.

      and have to be set high enough to make up for all the vast majority of drugs which fail to make it to market?

      But if the drugs _sell_ at that price point, why should someone who currently holds a monopoly on that drug due to a patent sell it any cheaper? (unless selling it cheaper would vastly increase the number of units sold and hence result in a larger overall profit despite making less profit per unit sold).

      If the drug companies don't think they can sell a drug against a certain medical condition at a price point that's profitable for them, they won't make it. See orphan drugs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

      Look at the cost of brand name drugs versus generics some time.

      Generics are cheap because the patents on them long since expired. This means that basically everyone is allowed to make them, which creates competition and drives the price down. Brand name drugs are expensive either because they're still protected by patents (and hence don't have any competition unless the patent holder allows it), or because the patients are suckers and prefer the "brand name" stuff to the available generic, or maybe because they manage to set themselves apart from existing generics in some way (afaik only Bayer makes aspirin in fizzy tablet form, which has some advantages in onset time).

      If we could look at case studies on European-approved drugs that have been out for, say, 10 years and use that as a basis to cheaply approve them in America, it'd probably help.

      Well, that's part of the NIH complex that's ubiquitous in America. However, back when thalidomide entered the market, the testing requirements in Europe were a lot laxer than they are today.

    18. Re:Pull it off the market by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      No, you live in a fantasy world where drug makers work for the greater good instead of their bottom line. They will charge the amount that makes them the most profit.

      I think you're missing the point that profit = gross income - costs. If you develop 10 drugs at a cost of millions per drug, and only one of them make it out of FDA approval, that one drug has to recover the costs of all 10 drugs in order for the company to turn a profit. And they have to do it in the few years they have before it goes generic.

      If the drug companies don't think they can sell a drug against a certain medical condition at a price point that's profitable for them, they won't make it. See orphan drugs.

      Not exactly. A friend of mine is the lead pharmacist for a company that specializes in making orphan drugs. They are a low production facility, and it takes a lot of grunt work to get the production lines certified, but that's what they do. They're the only source for a couple different chemo drugs in America. Just because large manufacturers won't make them doesn't mean they won't get made.

      I think you're more referring to the problem that drug companies won't focus R&D money on treating rare diseases, which is why we have government programs.

    19. Re:Pull it off the market by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      think you're missing the point that profit = gross income - costs. If you develop 10 drugs at a cost of millions per drug, and only one of them make it out of FDA approval, that one drug has to recover the costs of all 10 drugs in order for the company to turn a profit.

      Most drugs that don't get FDA approval do so for a reason. If FDA approval was not necessary and the companies just skipped parts of the testing, they might just have to pay for all the lawsuits that result. And I don't think that courts today will let drug companies off the hook as easily as it happened to Grünenthal back then.

      And many potential drugs will fail well before the approval phase - either because they're not really better than existing drugs, or have obvious side-effects that show even before any clinical trials.

      Not exactly. A friend of mine is the lead pharmacist for a company that specializes in making orphan drugs.

      Have you looked at all the incentives offered by the government for making such drugs? They wouldn't get made otherwise.

      I think you're more referring to the problem that drug companies won't focus R&D money on treating rare diseases, which is why we have government programs.

      That's a separate issue that's even worse than existing, orphaned drugs. Some diseases have been "waiting" for years for new drugs (e.g. Chagas), but there's not much money in making the existing ones already.

    20. Re:Pull it off the market by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Most drugs that don't get FDA approval do so for a reason.

      Sure, but not all reasons are the same. If a drug causes a slight increase in blood pressure, that could be enough to get it blocked from ever seeing the market. But if people took the weight loss drug in question, the loss of fat might counteract it... essentially I think a policy of informed consent should be adopted.

      The removal of Vioxx from the market, for example, infuriated my landlord at the time, since the only other drug he could use was liquid morphine, and so he slept 16 hours a day (to control his arthritis of the spine, very painful). He would have been more than happy to accept a slightly increased risk of heart valve damage in exchange for, you know, being able to live his life.

  11. Don't make me cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I would hate to lose the ability to smell my wife's panties.

  12. Question by camperdave · · Score: 1

    No sense of sight: Blind
    No sense of hearing: Deaf
    No sense of touch: Numb
    No sense of direction: Lost :-)

    No sense of smell: ???

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Question by artor3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anosmic

      Doesn't have the simplicity of blind or deaf, I know.

    2. Re:Question by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's smelling impaired you insensitive clod.

    3. Re:Question by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing you can be sure of is that a kid with these all problems sure plays a mean pinball.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    4. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "strunk"

    5. Re:Question by michaelhood · · Score: 3, Funny

      No sense of taste: Zune?

  13. These medications dont get tested by the FDA? by CountOfJesusChristo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Something about this doesn't smell right.

  14. Only the nasal version by PoiBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This warning only applies to the version of Zicam that you stick in your nose. When I have a cold, I use the lozenges that dissolve in your mouth, and I swear they really do help control the symptoms of a cold.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Only the nasal version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! You've discovered the placebo effect!

    2. Re:Only the nasal version by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Soon you will have no sense of taste.

    3. Re:Only the nasal version by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Swear all you want, but a Cochrane review concluded there was no evidence they worked:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_gluconate

      That said, I don't think personal experiences should always be dismissed. I know if someone came to me and said corticosteroids did nothing for excema, or oxymetazoline did nothing to clear your nose, I'd laugh at them, no matter their credentials.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:Only the nasal version by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      The Zicam topical cold sore zinc gel stuff works well, too. I think the product in question here works, it's just that applying that much zinc directly to your sensitive nasal areas has extremely unpleasant side effects.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
  15. Not Homeopathic by KeithIrwin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The odd bit of this story that no one really seems to be reporting is that this medicine, although sold under the "homeopathic" provisions of FDA regulations (and thereby bypassing the normal approval process), is not a homeopathic medicine as the term is usually used.

    If you go read the wikipedia entry on Homeopathy, you can see that the way homeopathic medicines are made involves taking a substance and then repeatedly diluting it with water, alcohol or sugar. Most homeopathic medicines are diluted repeatedly until the level of dilution is such that statistically, there is unlikely to even be a single molecule of the original substance remaining. Homeopaths consider higher levels of dilution to be more powerful. They generally believe that the water "remembers" the shape of the original substance.

    The Zicam nasal spray is only diluted 100:1 (2X or 1C on homeopathic scales), meaning that it is within the range of normal dilutions used in preparing drugs for delivery, not diluted to a level used in homeopathic remedies. It's being governed by rules meant to only cover placebos, but at that concentration, it's not a placebo. It's a real drug which can have real side effects. If the rules have allowed this drug to come to market legally then those rules have a huge loophole and need to be fixed ASAP. But no one seems to be noting that.

    1. Re:Not Homeopathic by robbak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You ninja'd my comment!

      Yes, I hope that the FDA acts quickly on redefining 'Homeopathic' as dilutions over a certain level (1ppm perhpas, the chemical equivalents of 3C) before one of these companies actually kills someone directly.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    2. Re:Not Homeopathic by fusellovirus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is loophole that needs to be filled. a detailed discussion why is here

    3. Re:Not Homeopathic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even 1ppm of something like dimethylmercury could be fatal - I'd want to see somewhere around 7C or lower concentration for automatic homeopathic qualification.

    4. Re:Not Homeopathic by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      the way homeopathic medicines are made involves taking a substance and then repeatedly diluting it with [...] sugar

      So cocaine is a homeopathic medicine?

    5. Re:Not Homeopathic by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative

      So cocaine is a homeopathic medicine?

      Yes. But only if you dilute it until there's not a single molecule left in the sample you're selling as medication.

      It'd probably be used against restlessness and insomnia.

  16. The skunk test by CanadianRealist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lost your sense of smell have you?

    Then of course you'd have no problem spending a few hours in a room full of skunks would you.
    I kinda think they could devise some test to show that you were faking it.

    1. Re:The skunk test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't mind that one bit... would make me want to smoke a joint really bad though.

    2. Re:The skunk test by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Then of course you'd have no problem spending a few hours in a room full of skunks would you.

      Even if I weren't able to smell, others would, and I wouldn't want my friends and family to avoid me for the next week.

      Also nothing in TFA indicated it was an abject loss of smell, could just be a significant reduction, in which case a skunk would still smell bad.

      On the other hand, what would the damages be? Lost wages as a perfume smeller? Usually my sense of smell does but one thing: annoy me.

    3. Re:The skunk test by nacturation · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, what would the damages be? Lost wages as a perfume smeller? Usually my sense of smell does but one thing: annoy me.

      You find no enjoyment from the flavor and aromas of food? The sense of taste is only a small component in food enjoyment. Losing one's sense of smell would make just about every food totally bland.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:The skunk test by Cylix · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You're sense of smell provides for most of your sense of taste.

      Bland food for the rest of you're life would be a bit of a disappointment.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    5. Re:The skunk test by Starlon · · Score: 3, Funny

      And burn a bowl of incense in the face. Good God. How can you think of spending a moment in a room full of skunks, stoned or not? You would have to give me something stronger. Something that would knock out my sense of smell. I wonder where I can find something like that?

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    6. Re:The skunk test by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      And burn a bowl of incense in the face. Good God. How can you think of spending a moment in a room full of skunks, stoned or not? You would have to give me something stronger. Something that would knock out my sense of smell. I wonder where I can find something like that?

      I think a room full of skunks would have that effect real quick.

    7. Re:The skunk test by stargrazer · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few nose hits with an air mixture between 150 to 250 ppm of hydrogen sulfide should do the trick.

    8. Re:The skunk test by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I really needed to have three messages telling me this.

    9. Re:The skunk test by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Annoying you is good. It protects you from dangerous situations.

    10. Re:The skunk test by Pollardito · · Score: 1
    11. Re:The skunk test by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Usually my sense of smell does but one thing: annoy me.

      Never kissed your girlfriend on the neck right after getting out of the shower, huh? Oh yeah, forgot where I was. Seriously though, there's nothing quite as arousing as sticking your nose in the fine hairs on the back of a girls neck and taking a deep sniff. I'd sooner lose my sense of sight.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  17. I smoke tobacco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I can't smell shit, knowing the Obama administration I should switch to weed... oh wait! :)

  18. Smells like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bullshit.

  19. Eh? Homeopathic? by Wolfbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    Homeopathic quackery is infamous and justly ridiculed for the fact that its 'remedies' contain exactly no active ingredients and - unsurprisingly - also have exactly no biological effects. This zinc based stuff is obviously not homeopathic.

    1. Re:Eh? Homeopathic? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the concentration in this stuff falls into the range where it does qualify as homeopathic, but it does actually do stuff. it's "2X" on the scale, or diluted 100:1. Weak on the homeopathic scale ("the more dilution, the stronger it is"), but in the real world, it's sufficient to be effective (at fucking things up, but effective nonetheless). how many medications do you know of where the dosage is measured in micrograms and would have effect at even 1,000,000:1 dilution? I can think of at least 3.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Eh? Homeopathic? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Homeopathic quackery is infamous and justly ridiculed for the fact that its 'remedies' contain exactly no active ingredients and - unsurprisingly - also have exactly no biological effects. This zinc based stuff is obviously not homeopathic.

      The thing I don't get is this: why doesn't it count as a "homeopathic remedy" when you drink a glass of normal water? I mean, sure, nobody went out of his way to put half a zinc molecule in my glass of water, but surely my water molecules were at least in the neighbourhood of a zinc molecule at some point during their long existance? In other words, what makes that little bottle with homeopathic water so special over plain tap water?

    3. Re:Eh? Homeopathic? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Homeopathic quackery is infamous and justly ridiculed for the fact that its 'remedies' contain exactly no active ingredients and - unsurprisingly - also have exactly no biological effects. This zinc based stuff is obviously not homeopathic.

      No no no, you misunderstand homeopathy completely. You see, the "weak" homeopathic stuff ("low potency") might actually still contain some of the active ingredient, while the "strong" stuff ("high potency", used by, err, "professionals") usually doesn't.

      Also, you treat diseases with stuff that causes the same symptoms. So, if colds cause you to lose your sense of smell, then something that causes loss of sense of smell is used to treat colds.

      As far as I'm concerned, the people who bought this stuff and lost their sense of smell got _exactly_ what they were asking for. If they don't understand the hypotheses used in homeopathy, that's not the fault of whoever makes the remedies. Maybe they should see a "professional" next time and get some of the "high potency" stuff that doesn't contain any trace of the active ingredient, then they won't experience any of the symptoms that the ingredient would cause.

    4. Re:Eh? Homeopathic? by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The thing I don't get is this: why doesn't it count as a "homeopathic remedy" when you drink a glass of normal water?

      Duh, because the uncontrolled mixing disrupted the natural vibration flow and depolarized the energy matrix. That's elementary, really.

      (Funny how similar technobabble and homeobabble are).

    5. Re:Eh? Homeopathic? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't get is this: why doesn't it count as a "homeopathic remedy" when you drink a glass of normal water?

      Duh, because the uncontrolled mixing disrupted the natural vibration flow and depolarized the energy matrix. That's elementary, really.

      (Funny how similar technobabble and homeobabble are).

      I wish I knew if you were kidding or not... ;-)

  20. Better than Deoderant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    just put some of that in the drinking water

  21. Re:Fucking idiots by TinBromide · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I know someone who was suckered into taking a sip of ammonia when she was a little kid. 40 years later and she still doesn't have a sense of smell. They still sell ammonia, granted I'm talking apples and oranges (cleaning product vs something meant for use INSIDE the human body), but the ratio of puyers/drinkers of ammonia may only be slightly higher than the ratio of buyers of zicam/people who lost their smell. I use it to clean certain kinds of messes (i tend to clean with a chemist's mindset, if it reacts, it is no longer a mess, it is a salt), but on occasion, I lose the sense of smell and get a sore throat for a few hours. Though that tends to happen more so with bleach than ammonia.

    Zicam is everywhere, even if there was a recall, you'd probably have 3-4 cold/flu seasons before you couldn't find it anymore.

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
  22. Not necessarily... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the warning letter the solution contains "an active ingredient measured in homeopathic strength--Zincum Gluconicum 2X".
    2X equals to 1:100 solution - which may be quite a significant dosage of the "active ingredient", depending on its nature.

    Incidentally, this is not the first time this particular maker of this particular homeopathic drug has been a cause of this particular health concern.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Not necessarily... by etwills · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, this is not the first time this particular maker of this particular homeopathic drug has been a cause of this particular health concern.

      ...and backed up by Snopes, I notice this morning (at http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/zicam.asp; status still "undetermined" despite being "collected via email, October 2006").

  23. But.... by dooms13 · · Score: 1

    At least I won't have a stuffy, runny nose as a result of my cold!

  24. Better scent than anything else. by Aphoxema · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've lost my smell to nasal polyps and chronic sinusitis years ago, it's a little disappointing sometimes but sometimes it's nice not having to smell awful things.

    I've heard that when you can't smell you can't taste, which is bullshit. I can't tell the difference between some things but I do very much have a vivid sense of taste still.

    And you know that "You lose one sense you gain another" thing? It doesn't work with smell.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    1. Re:Better scent than anything else. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I've heard that when you can't smell you can't taste, which is bullshit. I can't tell the difference between some things but I do very much have a vivid sense of taste still.

      You haven't completely lost your sense of smell. You've just lost your ability to detect faint scents on the air. Putting something in your mouth, in the sense of smell, is like the difference between a misting spray-bottle and a super-soaker.

      What happens when we 'taste' is that 1. the tongue senses sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and perhaps savory; and 2. chemicals waft up that hole in the back of the mouth to the olfactory tissue. Those two chemoreception processes taken together are what we think of as taste.

      In researching this post, I also learned that Stevie Wonder can't smell, either. Or so says wikipedia.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Better scent than anything else. by bitrex · · Score: 1

      One of my friends in college with congenital anosmia was a lifesaver when, as often happened, someone would leave leftover takeout in the lounge refrigerator over a school vacation. He was well rewarded for performing cleanup tasks that anyone with a functioning olfactory system would have found unbearable!

    3. Re:Better scent than anything else. by dissy · · Score: 1

      I've heard that when you can't smell you can't taste, which is bullshit. I can't tell the difference between some things but I do very much have a vivid sense of taste still.

      I have had anosmia since the age of three, from a botched medical nose cauterization. I am in my 30s, and to this day am still frequently surprised to learn from others all sorts of things that do have smells which I can not smell, and I would have assumed are fairly inert (Like plastic)

      Many foods to me have no flavor at all, and all that remains is consistency. This makes any steak to me, no matter how well prepared and how praised by others eating it, feels like chewing cardboard to me. I can attest it is far from bullshit, and if you do have a vivid sense of taste, you have not lost your sense of smell fully.

      On a side note, if I had to choose a sense to lose, this would be the one.
      Only once every few weeks or so do I hear comments such as "oooh doesn't that smell wonderful?! mmm", however much more frequently I do hear comments such as "Uhh awww who the hell.. oh my god" and room fleeing. In fact if I don't have a day off work, it can be a week filling occurrence :P

      Sadly, I too have experienced the same lack of my other senses sharpening :{

      Another down side is, this has multiple times given others the genius idea to ask me to change their cat litter or some crap because "I wouldn't mind" (obviously!)

      It is also the reason why I have most of three gas grills sitting out back. One was in need of some parts, of which each of the other two grills have. I figured like many other things can be, I would just combine three nonfunctional items into one functional one with a crap load of spare parts.
      Except they have been out there for years. I can't smell the additives to propane gas that give it a smell.
      I have no method to detect a leak, or that I would be about to light a flame in an area with a cloud of gas around me. Thus I don't even mess with it.

      It's not all ponies and rainbows

    4. Re:Better scent than anything else. by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      The correct way do detect your leak is to brush warm, soapy water on to all your joints, looking for bubbles.

      Now, go fix your grill and make some cardboard steak.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    5. Re:Better scent than anything else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And you know that "You lose one sense you gain another" thing? It doesn't work with smell."

      It doesn't work period, it's an adage lacking any actual backing.

    6. Re:Better scent than anything else. by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I've lost my smell to nasal polyps and chronic sinusitis years ago, it's a little disappointing sometimes but sometimes it's nice not having to smell awful things.

      I've heard that when you can't smell you can't taste, which is bullshit. I can't tell the difference between some things but I do very much have a vivid sense of taste still.

      And you know that "You lose one sense you gain another" thing? It doesn't work with smell.

      Same here. I had an operation two years ago, and it certainly helped unblock my nose, but my sense of smell hasn't returned. The weird thing is that I do have occasional flashes where I can suddenly smell perfectly fine, but it never lasts more than a few seconds. And like you, I don't believe my sense of taste is affected in any way.

    7. Re:Better scent than anything else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for this post. I'm posting as AC for the sake of privacy, but I'm a registered and longtime user. I just wanted to thank you for that second sentence... my husband is anosmic from birth due to a medical condition, and I always wondered about this taste correlation. He says he can taste pretty well, but since he never had a sense of smell, he didn't really have anything to compare it to. I'd read that taste was something like 80% smell, and he never has a complaint about my cooking (haha), so I've been pondering this for a while. Thanks for the insight. :)

    8. Re:Better scent than anything else. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Well, it's still a bitch that I can't smell anything even when I know I'm getting a good sniff at it. ... Maybe I should try eating things instead!

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    9. Re:Better scent than anything else. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      I guess I've only half-lost my scent, but it can be frustrating when people try to have me smell things, forgetting I'm the only person they know who can't smell.

      I do also get stuck with cleaning up the grossest things possible, but I've been invulnerable to grossness long before I lost my scent.

      I use gas for the stove and heating, I get concerned sometimes there could be a leak I don't notice. I'm just glad I don't like alone anymore.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    10. Re:Better scent than anything else. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Not to make light of your scenario at all--I am very close to someone with anosmia--but I can't help but think of how this could be used as a weight loss tool. No seriously, bear with me... how many people say they just can't stop eating foods they love? Granted, I'm very much in favour of the "grow a pair, have some self-control" school of thought, but let's face it--if someone found and marketed a product that temporarily, completely turned off their sense of smell/taste... it might not be ethical but they'd make a hell of a lot of money.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    11. Re:Better scent than anything else. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Only once every few weeks or so do I hear comments such as "oooh doesn't that smell wonderful?! mmm", however much more frequently I do hear comments such as "Uhh awww who the hell.. oh my god" and room fleeing.

      That might just be you.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Better scent than anything else. by smudge · · Score: 1

      I lost my sense of smell too. As for taste, I can only really detect sweet/spicey/salty. If I eat a fruit flavored candy ... I only know it's sweet until someone around me says "I smell oranges."

      I eat things I used to love and pretend they still taste good. I do eat a lot more spicy or sweet things than I probably would if I could really "taste" them. Even a well prepared steak doesn't have much taste. But a BBQ rib sure does.

      Since this loss happened later in my life I "remember" what things smelled like and I have friends that describe smells to me. If you set your mind to it you can imagine quite a bit.

    13. Re:Better scent than anything else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all you germans have a bad sense of taste.

    14. Re:Better scent than anything else. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Sorry you lost your sense of smell... that sucks! :(

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    15. Re:Better scent than anything else. by dissy · · Score: 1

      I guess I've only half-lost my scent, but it can be frustrating when people try to have me smell things, forgetting I'm the only person they know who can't smell.

      Yes I know what you mean. Fortunately I am noticing a larger number of my friends remembering, even if it is still along the lines of "Hey does this smell like... oh yea, my bad" But at this point most of the others don't really need me to say much, some just a laugh reminds them, so I'm not having to retell about it each time that comes up.

      I use gas for the stove and heating, I get concerned sometimes there could be a leak I don't notice. I'm just glad I don't like alone anymore.

      I too have gas heat, but here it's a gas water heater instead of stove. But only because I brought my own electric stove with me to replace the gas range that was already here, which is now stored unused in the basement until I move out.

      I too have that concern, however there are gas detectors available from any home depot type place, or even department stores (Same place they keep the smoke detectors) and I have one next to each smoke detector, and some on the walls where the gas lines lead to, like the kitchen, and in the area of the basement with the meter and mains. I rotate their batteries the same time as the smoke detectors so its no additional hassle. Using a valve for a camping propane tank, a three second burst in the center of the room set off the gas detector a couple seconds later. In the tiny quantities of gas we tested with, I was more than pleased with their results. Unfortunately they run noticeably more than a smoke detector, but my life runs (to me) a lot more than that.

      Granted, another person in the house is a better and usually preferred method, still, I don't think anyone would be offended or think you don't trust them to alert you to a gas leak, if you also put up a gas detector or two :}

  25. i can totally see this happeining by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Funny

    husband: honey, i have a cure for those smelly farts i have
    wife: thats nice dear, Beano?
    husband: no, this is better just one sniff and your cured forever

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:i can totally see this happeining by Glorat · · Score: 1

      Patient: I've been farting a lot lately. They are always silent and do not smell but it causes my skirt to move and I'm embarrassed that people are noticing. Is this something you can help me with?

      Doctor: Take one of these pills every day and see me next week

      - 1 week passes

      Patient: I'm afraid my farts haven't stopped. And not they've started smelling horribly!

      Doctor: Right, that's your nose fixed. Now for something for your ears...

  26. Anecdotal evidence. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth...

    While I haven't used Zycam, I have, a number of times over the last few years, used zinc gluconate tablets (dissolved in the mouth and gargled up toward the nose) to try to mitigate an oncoming cold.

    And I have also noticed, over that period, a significant reduction in my sense of smell (which I hadn't connected with anything and assumed might just be due to age).

    Needless to say I'll be skipping the zinc treatments in the future, at least until this is resolved.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  27. Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by XPeter · · Score: 0

    The body has phenomenal healing capabilities. They've done extensive and thorough tests on people contrasting the actual drugs and sugar pills and almost all of the participants from both groups were satisfied with the result. For the most part, it's all in your head.

    Being diagnosed with an extremely rare disease named KTS (Klippel Trenaunay Syndrome) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber_syndrome I've taken my fair share of pretty much every drug (from morphine to dilaudid). From personal experience I can tell that all it does is slightly mask the pain and make you feel like worse even worse shit when you factor in all the side-effects. Now, TFA is talking about cold meds but it's the same principal; if people expanded their horizons and stopped popping Advils or taking Zicam when they aren't feeling well and taking another root (natural medicine, anyone?), It's guaranteed society would notice a difference.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trip on acid all the time, and I sometimes think that's just in my head, too.

    2. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      That's quite anecdotal. Different people react to different medicines differently.

      I know some people find relief from extreme pain only with the use of Dilaudid or similar.

    3. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The body has phenomenal healing capabilities

      Sure, except when it doesn't, or is faced with a wound or pathogen that the body simply can't handle.

      if people expanded their horizons and stopped popping Advils or taking Zicam when they aren't feeling well and taking another root (natural medicine, anyone?), It's guaranteed society would notice a difference

      Ah, so you know of a root that is an analgesic, or which has anti-inflammatory properties? That's nice. Can you tell how to provide exactly the right amount of that root, prepared in exactly the right and consistent way, to produce just the anti-inflammatory effect needed without also causing liver or kidney trouble, or provoking an allergic response? Really? So, can you explain to a couple hundred thousand local witch doctors exactly how to predictably prepare, store, and dispense that substance so that anyone traveling can be sure they're getting just what they know will work, no matter where they go? I see, so we need some standards for preparation and dosing, just to be safe? I know, let's call those "pharmaceuticals."

      I know precisely how much Ibuprofen will relieve a handful of aches and pains that I can routinely get from certain physical activities. I can find it anywhere, and bank on the results. I'm glad that I don't have to go into an "alternative medicine" shop and get what I hope will be the right sort of powdered root extract from a guy who also promises me that ground up rhinocerous horn will improve my love life.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by XPeter · · Score: 1

      For your inflamatory problem, try buying an aloe vera leaf, cutting it open and putting the gel it releases on the affected area. Its not all witch docs that do this, many others do because they realize you dont need to buy into the bullshit the drug companies tell you. I mean common now, most medicine has more bad side effects than good effects. Also, its not necessary to pop a damn pill everytime your head starts to hurt a bit. suck it up.

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      Um, I think the writer meant "route" not "root."

      And yes I agree it is preposterous to distinguish "natural" remedies as good because they came directly from a plant. Strychnine anyone?

      The anti-pill arrogance can actually cause harm, as by discouraging people from seeking help. It's good I think to be skeptical of any treatment, but that doesn't prove you're special.

      if people expanded their horizons and stopped popping Advils or taking Zicam when they aren't feeling well and taking another root (natural medicine, anyone?), It's guaranteed society would notice a difference

      Ah, so you know of a root that is an analgesic, or which has anti-inflammatory properties? That's nice. Can you tell how to provide exactly the right amount of that root, prepared in exactly the right and consistent way, to produce just the anti-inflammatory effect needed without also causing liver or kidney trouble, or provoking an allergic response? Really? So, can you explain to a couple hundred thousand local witch doctors exactly how to predictably prepare, store, and dispense that substance so that anyone traveling can be sure they're getting just what they know will work, no matter where they go? I see, so we need some standards for preparation and dosing, just to be safe? I know, let's call those "pharmaceuticals."

    6. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called measuring retard

    7. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      it's called measuring retard

      Ah. And what are you measuring? The density of a particular chemical as found within a give volume of the plant material? And every example of the plant material will always have the same proportion of that chemical by weight or by volume, every time? No need to worry about how damp the material is when you make those measurements? So at what point does establishing a careful, reproducibly accurate method of delivering a specific amount of a chemical from a plant still fall short of being a pharmaceutical? Is it only a pharmaceutical if the measurement is accurate, and it's "alternative" if you can't really be sure how much of something is in there? Or is it only a pharaceutical if the person who's preparing it for you happened to incorporate their business?

      Never mind. Obviously you don't actually think about anything that carefully anyway. How's that rhinocerous horn powder working on your virility problem, anyway?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Well I highly suggest that next time you have a bad headache, you start munching on tree bark instead of taking an aspirin.

    9. Re:Why do people even take pharmacudical drugs? by aqk · · Score: 0

      The body has phenomenal healing capabilities.

      Phenomenal compared to what?

      (would there be "miracles" involved also?)

  28. Zicam is not homeopathic. by robbak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Homeopathic remedies (which I prefer to call homeopathetic...), as others have stated, are diluted until there is a low to zero probability of them containing 1 molecule of substance.

    This is stated to be a 1:100 dilution, which is 1% active ingredient: a significant concentration of a proven active (and detremental) ingredient.
    There use of homeopathic labels (2X, which means 2 dilutions of 1: 10) was done simply to avoid FDA attention, and they are likely to get into deep trouble because of it.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homeopathic remedies (which I prefer to call homeopathetic...), as others have stated, are diluted until there is a low to zero probability of them containing 1 molecule of substance.

      This is stated to be a 1:100 dilution, which is 1% active ingredient: a significant concentration of a proven active (and detremental) ingredient.
      There use of homeopathic labels (2X, which means 2 dilutions of 1: 10) was done simply to avoid FDA attention, and they are likely to get into deep trouble because of it.

      The homeopathetic statement just proved you're a jerk. Try to explain placebos, realize WHO is pathethic, and we'll talk.

    2. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic. by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      It's a simple matter of conflating the term "homeopathy" with "home remedy". One sells better than the other.

    3. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I am sure that people from WHO would object to that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Zicam is not homeopathic. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      No, you are referring to one type of Homeopathic treatment.

      "Homeopathic" just means; "Like heals like."

      The Zicam has plenty of Zinc in it -- which I think is the issue here. I just saw a program talking about people using too much denture cream, and having temporary nervous disorders from getting too much Zinc in their system.

      If it were so diluted that it didn't work -- where would be the issue of losing a sense of smell?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  29. Here's the meta-analysis by nbauman · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796643

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001364.

    Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD001364.

    Zinc for the common cold. Marshall I.

    National Center of Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 0200. marshali@health.qld.gov.au

    OBJECTIVES: Interest in zinc as a treatment for the common cold has grown following the recent publication of several controlled trials. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of zinc lozenges for cold symptoms.

    SEARCH STRATEGY: A search was made of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles. Searches were run to the end of 1997.

    SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised double blind placebo-controlled trials of zinc for acute upper respiratory tract infection or cold.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.

    MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials involving 754 cases were included. With the exception of one study, the methodological quality was rated as medium to high. For most outcome measures different summary estimates were used across the studies to describe the duration, incidence and severity of respiratory symptoms. This limited the ability to pool results. Results from two trials (04 - Mossad; 08 - Smith) suggested zinc lozenges reduced the severity and duration of cold symptoms. However, there was significant potential for bias, and further research is required to substantiate these findings. Overall, the results suggest that treatment with zinc lozenges did not reduce the duration of cold symptoms.

    REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the effects of zinc lozenges for treating the common cold is inconclusive. Given the potential for treatment to produce side effects, the use of zinc lozenges to treat cold symptoms deserves further study.

    (This meta-analysis was actually withdrawn, and I don't know why, maybe to evaluate more recent data.)

  30. I *knew* it! by sootman · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's much safer to stick with homeoerotic cures instead.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:I *knew* it! by grassy_knoll · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me guess... they're all suppositories?

    2. Re:I *knew* it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up you homeo ! :)

    3. Re:I *knew* it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Let me guess... they're all suppositories?

      Yeah, but you *really* don't want to know what the labels like 3X and 20C stand for...

  31. Homeopathy is hogwash... by jcr · · Score: 1, Redundant

    But this product has nothing to do with homeopathy. Homeopaths sell water. They don't do active ingredients.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Homeopathy is hogwash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there's always dehydration. I think they cure that one pretty nicely :)

    2. Re:Homeopathy is hogwash... by jcr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fair enough. I will concede that homeopathic products can treat thirst. Also, if applied topically, they can provide temporary relief from dry skin.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  32. Re:Fucking idiots by nwf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but ammonia isn't marketed as something you snort or drink. Zicam is indeed marketed as a nasal spray.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  33. Over The Counter Mass Produced Drugs = Bad by Ravi+Jaya · · Score: 1

    It's funny that they can market zicam as being "homeopathic". It's a total mass produced, corporate, industrially made drug and probably not good to snort up your nose. Most likely it has damaging effects to the olfactory nerves. -Ravi http://www.ravijaya.com/

    1. Re:Over The Counter Mass Produced Drugs = Bad by jcr · · Score: 1

      It's funny that they can market zicam as being "homeopathic". It's a total mass produced, corporate, industrially made drug

      Agreed. It's an entirely different form of quackery.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Over The Counter Mass Produced Drugs = Bad by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's a total mass produced, corporate, industrially made drug

      Ah, so a drug made by one person is OK, then? How about two people? Ten? At which point does the number of people working in the facility that puts a given chemical into a given form change it from being Good to being Bad? Ah, I see, you're a blowhard nitwit.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Over The Counter Mass Produced Drugs = Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your and idiot.

  34. Sounds familiar by Yvan256 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Matrixx has you.

    1. Re:Sounds familiar by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Moderators have lost their sense of humour?

  35. What a drag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Life is full of wonderful smells...

  36. Homeophobic by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't these guys know ANYTHING about homeopathic medicines?

    Clearly not - they must be homeophobes.

  37. I find it so strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The same people who are screaming that we need the FDA to regulate this kind of thing are the same ones who doubtlessly bitch about big pharma this and big pharma that.

    What's so odd, you may ask? Obviously these guys don't know the industry as the FDA is the big brother that keeps big pharma in line.

    If you think the pharmaceutical industry is out of hand now wait until you give the FDA power over supplements and herbals. It'll be a fucking slaughter by the largest of pharmaceutical producers with the FDA kicking anyone back in play who doesn't have the money to buy their way into legitimacy. No one with less than a few billion on their side will ever get anything to market without the blessings of the FDA.

    Think it's a joke? Than please shut the fuck up until you learn how the industry works and how the FDA makes it near impossible to get even the least effective drugs to market without putting more money into their pockets than all the Wall Street bonuses over the last decade.

  38. Prediction by Starlon · · Score: 1

    Next on the FDA's agenda: control all homeopathics. I guarantee you.

    --
    Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    1. Re:Prediction by Allicorn · · Score: 1

      True. That and "come up with more pointless neologistic terminology like 'life-dangerous' when 'life-threatening' would have done just as well"

      May I propose "vivacity-hazardous" as in "Surgeon General's warning: smoking is vivacity-hazardous"

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    2. Re:Prediction by aqk · · Score: 0

      Next on the FDA's agenda: control all homeopathics. I guarantee you.

      I'm a witch (homeopathetic branch). Do they plan to control my dried toad-eggs and eye-of-newt?

      And what about my broomstick? Or does that fall under the jurisdiction of the evil FAA?

  39. There is more to it than meets the eye by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 0

    I do know people who had been successfully treated with homeopathy without knowing the intended effect. Specifically the subject stopped having uneasy sleep, which it had been having for a long time, just by taking a few drops of a bach flower remedy on a regular basis. The subject was a child, have never been told what was supposed to be cured and apparently there was no other reason for the end of the symptom.

    I know homeopathy probably won't cure severe diseases, but it isn't as useless as people think. Seemingly there is no reason for it to work at all, yet there are people who get results by taking it.

    Being skeptic will not achieve anything. If it seemingly works for some people we shouldn't say "it doesn't work" just because we believe it is not supposed to work. We should ask ourselves why it works. Discover why and in which circumstances it could work rather than just trying to disprove it.

    Reality beats theory at any time, don't limit yourself to what the books say. You may even end up discovering something completely new.

    --
    The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    1. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by alexhard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The plural of anecdote is not data.

      Even if you for some reason choose to ignore the science known as chemistry, data acquired in a good manner shows that homeopathic "medicines" have no more effect than a placebo. It most definitely does not work.

      Being a "skeptic" achieves not being fooled into taking placebos instead of proper drugs, which can save your life in many cases.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    2. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by MrMista_B · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the kid was cured by sugar-water?

      I hope the kid never gets an actual illness, because if that's the way the parents 'take care' of their child, I'd call that 'negligence likely to cause death'.

    3. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to convince us that homeopathic medicines work, than by all means, put one of them through a rigorous, controlled clinical trial. (Not one anecdotal bit that may or may not be true and if it is may or may not be coincidental.) Tell one group they're getting the homeopathic "medicine" and give that to them. Tell the other group that's what they're getting and give them a placebo. Compare the results. That's how accurate results are obtained about the effectiveness of an actual drug against the placebo effect.

      If you find significantly better results in the side that took the "medicine" than in those who took the placebo, and those results prove to be repeatable, you may have yourself a case. But until someone is confident enough in the method to submit it to rigorous, controlled testing, rather than "It worked this time! Really! Don't be so closed minded!", it's just quackery preying on the gullible.

      When proponents of something are quick to tout its benefits and quick to ridicule its critics, but even quicker to duck rigorous testing that would show for sure if it really works or not, I become very closed minded very quickly. I've never taken Zicam, so apparently I can still smell bullshit just fine. If you're that confident in it, put it up for FDA approval.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    4. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homeopathic and Naturalpath are historically based from Eastern Medicine - wherein "cures" and "treatments" take the form of their natural state: ie roots, dried/ground plants, etc. Many Western pharmaceuticals have their origins from actual Homeopathic cures. The difference between pharmaceuticals and homeopathic medicine is that pharmaceutical companies try to distill what the "active" ingredient in the cure is - and turn it into a pill with bulking fillers. The problem with pharmaceuticals is it destroys the synergy of the natural plants other ingredients.

    5. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seemingly there is no reason for it to work at all, yet there are people who get results by taking it.

      I had a cold. I stayed in bed and ate chocolate for a couple of days, and my cold went away. From this I learned that (a) chocolate is a cure for the common cold and (b) having a cold causes you to gain weight.

    6. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Homeopathic and Naturalpath are historically based from Eastern Medicine - wherein "cures" and "treatments" take the form of their natural state: ie roots, dried/ground plants, etc. Many Western pharmaceuticals have their origins from actual Homeopathic cures. The difference between pharmaceuticals and homeopathic medicine is that pharmaceutical companies try to distill what the "active" ingredient in the cure is - and turn it into a pill with bulking fillers. The problem with pharmaceuticals is it destroys the synergy of the natural plants other ingredients.

      That does not change my point in the slightest. If it really works this well, subject it to the same testing given to standard pharmaceuticals. If you're correct about how effective this "synergy" is, you'll blow the modern pharmaceuticals right out of the water.

      It's not my guess that this would be the actual result of the testing, but by all means, put it to genuine rigorous testing to answer the question. Otherwise, going on about "synergy" and the rest of it are just obfuscation. If it's that good, prove it. Don't spout feel good but empty phrases about it.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    7. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by millennial · · Score: 1

      1. You're a fucking idiot. There is no "synergy". It's CHEMISTRY. 2. Homeopathy was invented within the last 120 years by a Western hackjob named Hahnemann.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    8. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by millennial · · Score: 1

      s/120 years/200 years/

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    9. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      data acquired in a good manner shows that homeopathic "medicines" have no more effect than a placebo. It most definitely does not work.

      Care to reconcile those two statements?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    10. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by yukk · · Score: 1

      Seemingly there is no reason for it to work at all, yet there are people who get results by taking it.

      I had a cold. I stayed in bed and ate chocolate for a couple of days, and my cold went away. From this I learned that (a) chocolate is a cure for the common cold and (b) having a cold causes you to gain weight.

      Bah. I never have modpoints when I need them so instead you'll have to accept my homeopathic strength chocolate as a reward.

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    11. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Specifically the subject stopped having uneasy sleep, which it had been having for a long time, just by taking a few drops of a bach flower remedy on a regular basis.

      I just did a Google search. Bach Flower remedies are not homeopathic; they contain measurable amounts of flower extracts, plus 27% brandy as a preservative. Homeopathic remedies are made by astonishing amounts of dilution.

      However, your basic point is not that Bach remedies are homeopathic, but that science is not all that impressed by them (just like science is not all that impressed by homeopathy). So I guess it doesn't matter whether Bach remedies are homeopathic or not.

      Well, don't forget that placebos work too. Now, if you could demonstrate that the Bach remedies work better than placebos, I'd be interested. I'll tell you right now, in my book the Bach remedies are placebos. Placebos with 27% brandy content.

      By the way, how many drops of brandy would it take to make a child sleep more deeply? :-)

    12. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe I remember reading (I forget where, possibly reader's digest) about some compound in dark chocolate that is a highly effective cough suppressant, supposedly better than codeine.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    13. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

      >Actually, I believe I remember reading (I forget where, possibly reader's digest) about some compound in dark chocolate that is a highly effective cough suppressant, supposedly better than codeine.

      Honey is a damn good cough suppressant, backed up by randomized trials. (IIRC, it's definitely better than dextromethorphan.) I don't recall anything about chocolate.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    14. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      "Measurable" is subjective. The same Wikipedia article you pointed me says they are extremely dilute. The amount of flower extracts remaining should be "measurable" as it is just diluted, not removed.

      If the subject is unaware of the intended effect, how could it be placebo effect? Supposing it is the brandy, why the effect would continue after it was no longer administered?

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    15. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Found it. Substance in question is theobromine. Study was at Imperial College London

      Study in question (PDF warning)

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    16. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      The fact that the homeopathic nature of the sugar or water has no effect. Me hitting you with a brick could have a placebo effect if I dress up the treatment well enough, so that could 'work' as much as homeopathic cures. Working as well as placebo does not count as working, if you develop a new drug and it works as well as not giving the drug you don't declare your trial a success and start prescribing it to people.

    17. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Unaware of the intended effect? You mean it was slipped in their food without them noticing? The people giving it didn't know the intended effect either? (this has been shown to have an effect on how effective a placebo is). Was the uneasy sleep getting worse? why wait before trying this remedy? The underlying cause for the uneasy sleep may well have been resolved by itself.

    18. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Not knowing the specifics, one can never tell.

      Last year I got a rather nasty, and persistent, cold. For the sake of being open minded I took some natural remedies, my cold DID go away shortly after. Will this happen again? Who knows. If I did this 100 times, and my cold went away shortly after 90 times, I could say that it might work, for me. If I did this 1000 times, with 100 people, I can come closer to an actual conclusion.

      Did you try this on a representational, truly random sample, while controlling your extraneous variables? Did you achieve a certain level of statistical significance? Until you can answer this as "yes" it is merely an anecdotal account, and not worth the pixels its written in.

      Last time I sneezed, there was lightening, therefore I am Thor, God of Thunder.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    19. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Unaware of the intended effect? You mean it was slipped in their food without them noticing? The people giving it didn't know the intended effect either?

      The people giving it obviously knew what it was and it was not slipped to the food, but the subject didn't know what it was or what was intended to cure. I'm not sure if she even noticed the problem before it was cured. In those conditions, how other people knowing would do any difference?

      Was the uneasy sleep getting worse? why wait before trying this remedy? The underlying cause for the uneasy sleep may well have been resolved by itself.

      Why does it match the use of the flower remedies then? And why it didn't resolve itself before? The changes happened just after the first week of use. Only a single flask was used. I'm not sure, but I believe it lasts less than a month. It is a small window of time. Why it coincides then?

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    20. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Measurable" is subjective.

      That term was meant to be in contrast to "so fucking dilute that a bottle of homeopathic medicine is very unlikely to contain even a molecule of the homeopathic source material". True homeopathic medicine is not distinguishable from pure water.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

      The same Wikipedia article you pointed me says they are extremely dilute.

      It doesn't say how dilute. But I suspect it is less dilute than homeopathic medicines.

      But really, who cares? I don't even care anymore. Call the Bach flower remedies "homeopathic" if you want. Why should I argue?

      If the subject is unaware of the intended effect, how could it be placebo effect?

      Mom: "Oh, honey, you still can't sleep? Here, have a few drops of this."

      Now, if you want to tell us that the parents slipped the drops into orange juice or something without telling the child, I'll be happy to rule out placebo effect. That would put this anecdote more into the "random chance" category in my mind.

      As I said, you will need to show me scientific test results showing it works better than a placebo before I will believe in this.

      But I can sooner believe in the Bach flower remedies than in homeopathic medicine. I don't believe that water has a "memory" of things that were put into it, and I don't believe that pure water cures health problems. (I'd say "other than thirst" but that joke has already been done.)

    21. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Well the subject must have had some idea it was being given to help with something, the body language and way in which the people giving it act has a large effect on the placebo. I'm sure it was given just before the subject went to sleep... I wonder what they could possibly have thought it was connected with.

      The reason the times may have coincided and why I asked about why that time was chosen to give the remedy is because people often do these things when the problem is at its worse, if the sleep problems were peaking at the time the remedy was given then you expect symptoms to get better with time anyway. This is actually how a lot of homeopathic and pharmaceutical cold remedies appear to 'cure' the cold.

    22. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plural of anecdote is not data.

      Actually, the plural is "anecdota"

    23. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      You are confusing homeopathy with fytotherapy.

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    24. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by VenomPhallus · · Score: 1

      "If it seemingly works for some people we shouldn't say "it doesn't work" just because we believe it is not supposed to work. We should ask ourselves why it works"

      No, first we should ask "does it *actually* work?". You don't simply hear a couple of anecdotes and assume "well this obviously works".

      So you set up a study to see whether the anecdotal experiences are replicated in the population at large. This has been done countless times with homeopathy. The better designed the study, the less likely that it is to show any effect. Properly conducted, double-blinded studies consistently show no effect whatsoever over placebo.

      The line that sceptics reject homeopathy because "it's not supposed to work" is a claim frequently used by proponents. It's simply not true. People reject homeopathy because all the good evidence shows it doesn't work. There's no good evidence to show it does work, and reams of the stuff to show it doesn't. It fails before you even get to pondering the questions of the mechanism, the law of similars etc.

    25. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Ok, give my pixels back then.

      I'm not the only one who have seen results out of it. While the explanations given about it are very unscientifical, science might have simply failed to find a good explanation so far.

      Even common medicines depend on biological conditions to have good results. If results with non-standard medicines are unreliable, it might just be that the underlying principles are not well understood. And they surely are not.

      That's my point. To say everytime it works is because placebo effect and everytime it doesn't work is because it doesn't work it's too easy. The same can be said about any medicine. I am not a pharmacologist, I don't know how the medicine I take works. Just because we can't figure out how it works it doesn't means it doesn't work, it only means we don't know.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    26. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by VenomPhallus · · Score: 1

      "If the subject is unaware of the intended effect, how could it be placebo effect? Supposing it is the brandy, why the effect would continue after it was no longer administered?"

      Who reported the improvment? The same people that gave the child the "remedy", presumably.

      The placebo effect improvement doesn't just have to be reported by the patient. It's well known in parents/children and owners/animals as well.

    27. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      "Homeopathic" covers a lot, though, and some things sold under the homeopathic label are just a bad idea - colloidal silver, for example. While the stuff isn't dangerous per se, some people assume it to replace all antibiotics and be effective when taken as a preventive measure. And hell, one gram per day should be fine; more helps more and since it's not a chemical like normal antibiotics it can't poison me.

      Oops, I developed an argyria and my skin has been irreversively tinted gray.


      Many people have an odd notion that homeopathic products are a panacea without possible side effects.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    28. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      And hell, one gram per day should be fine; more helps more

      Given that in homeopathy, more dilution means more potency, then the people who think that taking more of a homeopathic remedy will help more are idiots _twice_ - first for believing in homeopathy and then for failing to follow the actual principles of homeopathy.

      If you want to do homeopathy, at least follow the instructions of its inventors, please?

    29. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I'm not the only one who have seen results out of it. While the explanations given about it are very unscientifical, science might have simply failed to find a good explanation so far.

      This verges on the "god of the gaps" type fallacy, and also begs the question. Before you can find an explanation, you must prove that an effect exists. Not enough people have seen results to actually show that there are any. This is my point, and the point of most of the people replying to your original post.

      To say everytime it works is because placebo effect and everytime it doesn't work is because it doesn't work it's too easy.

      No one said that it is ONLY the placebo effect that is behind the scene in the (statistically) few cases where it works. If we had a study on the effectiveness for any given treatment on any given condition, and it showed a 100% lack of effect, I would start worrying about the experimental design being terribly flawed.

      If I give a homeopathic "insomnia cure" to 10,000 people (a HUGE sample size), there still would be hundreds of cases where the insomnia was cured. The probability of this would be lower than the threshold granted by random chance.

      This is all that matters. Is there scientific proof that it works? I really don't care HOW it works.

      Another tick against it that if homeopathy is true, it goes against most of what we know about chemistry. I'd generally put a giant, coherent, collection of data that agrees with the facts over one thing that may or may not exist that contradicts these facts. The idea of homeopathy also contradicts many other fields of knowledge, including logic.

      The page on wikipedia has a nice blurb about how, if the principle was true, normal water would contain EVERY homeopathic remedy, thanks to the closed nature of the water cycle.

      I don't mean to sound hostile. But it does raise a small bit of ire. There is no science saying it works, or how it could possibly work. To me this is more important than whatever someone wants to have faith in.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    30. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Homeopathic and Naturalpath are historically based from Eastern Medicine - wherein "cures" and "treatments" take the form of their natural state:

      No, homeopathy is based on considering the exception as the rule - treating a disease with highly-diluted substances that would cause the same symptoms if you took a large dose of it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Law_of_similars

      Funny thing is, there are actually a couple of cases where the principle would work, if you didn't dilute the heck out of the active ingredient first. Malaria is one, ADHD would be another.

    31. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The page on wikipedia has a nice blurb about how, if the principle was true, normal water would contain EVERY homeopathic remedy, thanks to the closed nature of the water cycle.

      And in really "high potency" dilution, no less. ;)

      But then again, the uncontrolled mixing probably disrupts the natural energy flow and renders the ingredients ineffective. At least that's something a homeopath would tell you, or some similar nonsense.

    32. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Did you try a few drops of sugared water and see if that still worked? I expect it would have, and it would be much cheaper than back's remedies.

    33. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Next question,

      Did it really improve his sleep, or did it just make his parents think it improved his sleep?

      You get that sort of placebo effect with fuel additives, engine cleaners and supposedly more powerful fuels.

    34. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The difference between pharmaceuticals and homeopathic medicine is that pharmaceutical companies try to distill what the "active" ingredient in the cure is - and turn it into a pill with bulking fillers.

      As opposed to homeopaths who get rid of the active ingredient (if there ever was one) entirely, and turn it into plain water?

      I suspect you are confusing traditional medicine with claptrap like homeopathy. Traditional medicines are natural substances that in many cases do have an effect. This is because they contain some substance. There's nothing magical about it - they can be tested scientifically. For example, willow bark can cure headaches - this is because it contains salicylic acid. These days most people carry it in pill form, as it's more convenient than lugging a tree around with you.

      Homeopathy on the other hand is just turning things into plain water. There is no known way they could have an effect, and anyway, scientific tests have shown that their effect is no different to drinking water.

      If you want to be an anti-drug person who prefers willow bark to aspirin pills, then good luck to you. But please don't confused scientifically tested conventional medicine with made up rubbish like homeopathy.

    35. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much more representative (considering the case raised above) would be a few drops of brandy which might evaporate and be inhaled, applied to a child or other non-drinker such as myself. I'm not convinced by Bach, but it's not homeopathy because it's not in a water base.

      On a side note, my girlfriend did recently try it, remarking quite correctly that a placebo effect has been shown to work even when the patient is aware that the drug is believed to contain no active ingredient. Rather, the act of focusing on a condition and ritual of applying some substance can have a positive psychological (and then, possibly, physiological, if the right endorphins or whatever are released) effect. Why might this not work for a ritual with tap water? Well,

      (1) Who knows that it doesn't - is there a published study where people have been given a ritual involving tap water, and told it is tap water?

      (2) There is not so much focus on the condition and the uniqueness of the ritual when you're just doing something you might do every day;

      (3) The element of doubt does not come into tap water. We're already drinking water all the time. We're not evaporating brandy into the air all the time. All scientific endeavour starts with a hunch and a bit of faith, so even a scientific mind can be moved by an inch of doubt.

      The point is not to say that Bach has an active ingredient, but to suggest that US medicine (US especially - the problem is not so evident in Europe) is very focused on specific rather than holistic cure. The psychological state of the patient may be a significant contributor toward his body's ability to cope with some condition, because (among other things, such as appetite, personal hygiene, etc.) body chemistry is affected by mood, and mood is affected by ritual and belief and focus.

    36. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post, my thoughts exactly. One minor point. In clinical trials, for ethical reasons you usually tell both groups of subjects that they could receive either the treatment or placebo, but they nor their physician will know which one until the end of the trial. If you tell them they are going to get the treatment, but give them placebo, that could be considered unethical.

    37. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Hey, that would require actually thinking about it. If they did that they might realize they're being charged twenty bucks for 20 ml of water.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    38. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      One minor point. In clinical trials, for ethical reasons you usually tell both groups of subjects that they could receive either the treatment or placebo, but they nor their physician will know which one until the end of the trial.

      Actually, that has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with executing a proper study. What you describe is called a double-blind experiment, and it ensures that those executing the study can't manipulate the outcome, consciously or unconsciously (even an ethical researcher might inadvertently telegraph information to the subjects if they know who is receiving the drug and who is receiving the placebo).

    39. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I did mix up Homeopathic and Naturopathy / Naturalpath. I was sure some of my mother's "other doctors" coined themselves Homeopathic - but she definitely doesn't do any "water treatments" or excessively diluted meds.

    40. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'm not. I just don't use Wikipedia for every little thing. I happened to mix up homeopathy/homeopathic with naturapth/naturalpathic.
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=synergistic+ingredients

    41. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Tell one group they're getting the homeopathic "medicine" and give that to them. Tell the other group that's what they're getting and give them a placebo. Compare the results. That's how accurate results are obtained about the effectiveness of an actual drug against the placebo effect.

      No, no, no, no, no!

      Secretly assign subjects to be in one of two groups. Each subject gets a substance. It might be the medicine under test, it might be a placebo. Neither the patient nor the person administering the medicine/evaluating the results should know which group the patient was in, i.e. whether the patient got the medicine or the placebo.

      Basic science, here. Only Change One Variable At A Time. My fourth-grade daughter learned that in science class. Patient knowing what they're receiving: variable. Administrator knowing what they're giving the patient: variable. Medicine the patient got: variable. Decide what you want to test, and change only that.

    42. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      We should ask ourselves why it works.

      Yeah, well if I believe that my ass is one end of a rainbow I might feel better too. That doesn't make it true...

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    43. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FDA approved? You mean like Viox?
      http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/03/02.php

    44. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Watch out for that homeopathic strength chocolate. I think yukk might have kept the cure for himself, because you can't taste any difference between homeopathic strength chocolate and no chocolate at all.

    45. Re:There is more to it than meets the eye by millennial · · Score: 1

      No, shitbrick, you didn't. You mentioned them both. That's like saying you like Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, then saying you got Brad Pitt confused for Matt Damon.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
  40. Well that stinks ... by Wansu · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe they can sell Zicam to people who work around hog waste lagoons or people who pump out septic tanks.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  41. I like homeopathy! by Korbeau · · Score: 1

    Diluting the problem in the solution!
    The guy that thought of that was a genious.

    He just had one drop of genious though, diluted in a sea of being a complete dumb-shit.

  42. Food flavor etc. by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Usually my sense of smell does but one thing: annoy me.

    I highly doubt that. You just don't realize what your sense of smell is doing for you. For example, about 70% of what you think of as "taste" when you are eating food comes from your sense of smell. Without a sense of smell, your food will taste rather bland and you probably wouldn't be able to appreciate the more subtle flavors (and definitely the aromas) of various foods. Try it yourself. Next time you are stuffed up with a cold, try eating one of your favorite foods and see if it is still as full of flavor as you remember.

    While humans don't use pheromones as actively as other animals, the sense of smell still plays a big part in arousal (and in stopping arousal, to be fair). Good smells make sex better. You do want to have better sex, don't you? (insert the "oh wait, this is slashdot" quips here).

    And finally, all those things that annoy you about sense of smell are probably also helping to save your life. It lets you know that something is wrong (bad air, bad food, bad place, etc).

    So, for a person's overall quality of life, I'd say that the loss of the sense of smell is a pretty big deal. It is not one of the senses I would want to lose. I'd rather lose my ability to hear.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Food flavor etc. by ctmurray · · Score: 4, Informative

      My sister lost her sense of smell after a bad cold. She can't smell natural gas, so this can be a serious issue. Later I read the smell of fire or burning things is quite useful as well. She had to get special natural gas detectors for her house (like smoke detectors - a loud shrill when set off). She mentions that food has no taste either.

    2. Re:Food flavor etc. by Jurily · · Score: 1, Troll

      While humans don't use pheromones as actively as other animals, the sense of smell still plays a big part in arousal (and in stopping arousal, to be fair).

      Pheromones play as big a part as our sense of smell permit it. Everything you can learn about sex from watching squirrels in your backyard also applies to humans. It's just that society has come up with various ways to control those processes, like marriage, religion, and recently dephe^H^H^Hodorants.

    3. Re:Food flavor etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sex is annoying too.

    4. Re:Food flavor etc. by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      I'd rather lose my ability to hear.

      Kids playing the stereo too loud? You may get your wish...

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    5. Re:Food flavor etc. by radtea · · Score: 1

      For example, about 70% of what you think of as "taste" when you are eating food comes from your sense of smell.

      This is one strong indication that the complaints to the FDA are bogus: only a very few of them mention taste at all, whereas virtually everyone who had really lost their sense of smell would notice a radical reduction in their sense of taste.

      I feel a bit tinfoilhattish for saying it, but it wouldn't surprise me if a OTC cold treatment manufacturer were behind this, because Zicam really does work extremely well to reduce the duration and severity of cold symptoms. I wouldn't expect a marketing droid running a campaign of lies to know about the association of smell and taste, but now that this is getting talked about online I'm betting that quite suddenly all the new complaints will mention taste.

      If I were Zicam I'd press the FDA about the inconsistency in their own data: how can you lose your sense of smell without your sense of taste, and if the complaintants had lost their sense of taste why didn't they mention it?

      Zicam has kept me essentially cold-free for several years, and I used to suffer like hell through winters. I even had the opportunity to do a on/off test, as I'm a Canadian who used to work in the States, and when I was working there I could get it and was cold-free, and when I wasn't I couldn't and still got colds. Now that it's available in Canada, I'm cold-free again.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    6. Re:Food flavor etc. by m0i · · Score: 1

      I'd rather lose my ability to hear.

      Experience it and let us know.. I somehow doubt it, being deaf could be worse (IMO) than being blind. No longer hearing voices or music? no way!

      --
      have you been defaced today?
    7. Re:Food flavor etc. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      While humans don't use pheromones as actively as other animals, the sense of smell still plays a big part in arousal (and in stopping arousal, to be fair). Good smells make sex better.

      Agreed--however, it's interesting how you don't *need* a sense of smell for this. The sex pheromone bit actually bypasses the olfactory nerves and goes to a different part of the brain, that controls sexual response. Even people with a sense of smell can't actively detect them. It's fascinating stuff.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    8. Re:Food flavor etc. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      I somehow doubt it, being deaf could be worse (IMO) than being blind.

      It's not just IMO. Going deaf messes you up worse than going blind, since you essentially lose your ability to communicate like you used to. No more conversations or phone calls, no more early warning of things happening behind or next to you, etc.

    9. Re:Food flavor etc. by djschwarz · · Score: 1

      I been losing my sense of smell over the last several years. I believe it is hereditary however, my mother has no sense of smell. Mine's at about 1/10 of what it used to be. I can still smell, but I have to "do it deliberately" inhale deeply. that being said, it's been a relatively minor issue for me. Losing my hearing on the other hand would sux. No music, no sirens, no laughter, no thank you.

    10. Re:Food flavor etc. by SBrach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, what an idiat.

    11. Re:Food flavor etc. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I've used Zicam, and I can say that in my experience it's a massive scam. (Yes, I can still smell things.)

      Zicam doesn't work as well as a simple oral Zinc supplement that costs 1/10th the price. It is merely a triumph of marketing.

    12. Re:Food flavor etc. by baegucb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      hrm..something weird with /.
      anyways. hopefully this comment will go to your email. If you're the guy with a wife who is a COBOL programmer, have her join linkedin and join mainframe experts network. lots of jobs around the world. Mostly USA and India and Europe.

    13. Re:Food flavor etc. by ctmurray · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I sent along your note.

    14. Re:Food flavor etc. by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Looking for a COBOL Developer - Washington DC -- For more details, email: sheryll.smith@sirc.net

      was sent on Thursday, for example. But it's all over the world. Good luck.

    15. Re:Food flavor etc. by JimThink · · Score: 1

      So bad colds can cause loss of the sense of smell? That could make Zicam's case look a lot easier - except they would have to find a jury that even remotely understands causality.

  43. And this is bad because? by PPH · · Score: 1

    I've met some people are fans of homeopathic remedies. Losing ones sense of smell could be a good thing.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:And this is bad because? by C18H27NO3+ · · Score: 1

      Especially for residents of New Jersey. On a serious note, I sometimes wondered how products that purport to remedy specific ailments can be sold without testing and approval from the FDA. And they also state a disclaimer that it isn't approved as if that absolves them of any liability.

  44. If it has anything in it that can do anything... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...it isn't homeopathic.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  45. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should really consider changing your cleaning practices, I think...

  46. Re:Fucking idiots by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1
    pretend that you lost a sense of smell (let me see them prove otherwise)

    That's easy: they just need to put some fermented dog poo under your nose while you don't expect it and watch your reaction :)

  47. Re:Fucking idiots by Torvaun · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify, it's actually a nasal swab. You basically jam a slimy q-tip up your nose and swirl it around.

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  48. Loss of smell is real by bshensky · · Score: 1

    I am someone who lost prolly 75% of his sense of smell over the 90s. Why, I do not know.

    I do find favor with extra spicy foods, as they stimulate me in ways other foods cannot.

    My wife has a hyper sense of smell. I take out the garbage.

    --
    Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
  49. Something fishy.... by Auxis · · Score: 1

    ... is what I am smelling right now.

  50. Re:Fucking idiots by nwf · · Score: 1

    Ah, a case of the cure worse than the disease! That doesn't sound pleasant.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  51. Re:Fucking idiots by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

    pretend that you lost a sense of smell (let me see them prove otherwise)

    That's easy: they just need to put some fermented dog poo under your nose while you don't expect it and watch your reaction :)

    Well, have to be both blind and anosmic(can't smell) to ignore fermented poo almost in your face.

    --
    The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
  52. Three cheers for the FDA.... by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

    I had an "FDA approved" drug once that right on the label said (paraphrasing) "WARNING: Can eat a hole through your stomach and kill you". That's not an exaggeration. And this was a pain medication. I never took one because despite it being "approved", I'd rather just deal with the pain then potentially kill myself.

    The FDA blocks shipments of e-cig nicotine inhalers that are basically 100% effective to stop people from smoking since people are still inhaling nicotine vapor as a replacement (note: it's not the puffer, it's much closer to a cigarette). Just instead it's safe (except the FDA won't say it's safe).

    I've long given up on thinking the FDA really has consumer protection at heart. It needs to be revamped. It's like because the FDA regulates it, it's OK to have serious side effects. Because the FDA doesn't, it's not OK for a 1 in a million chance. Because the FDA doesn't regulate it, but doesn't understand it, it can't allow it even though it could stop 100's of 1000's of deaths.

  53. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ever growing category of unregulated drugs are becoming a real problem. Not just is there the problem that sometimes (like in this case) the fact that it's unregulated makes it possible to sneak actually harmful ingredients in there, but to Joe Average these "cures" look just like real medicine (at least those at my local pharmacy do) and only us in the know can tell that they aren't. That's all well and good for headaches that usually cure themselves anyway but if people really need a working drug and they aren't getting it, for example because they think that they are taking one, that can have grave medical consequences. Not to mention what can happen if people, encouraged for example by the fact that these things are sold in the pharmacy like any other drug, really believe that it works and then are blinded to the signs that it doesn't.
    http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
    P.S. There is a homeopathic drug that actually works. The "active ingredient" is salt.

  54. Re:Fucking idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The make a swab, nasal spay and a lozenge. The nasal spray and swap are the problem. /pharmacist

  55. Balance by Jessified · · Score: 1

    130 people experience said symptoms and there is an outcry? If 130 people complained about a heavily backed pharmaceutical, it would be buried. How many people die from Tylenol every year?

    I doubt it works, but lets at least be balanced here.

  56. Damn! by lynn.dylan · · Score: 1

    This actually happened to my mom like 2 or 3 years ago. She tried to file a lawsuit against Zicam and everyone treated her like she was crazy. She still can't smell anything. What action can she take against this company?

  57. Could be just the cold causing this by criminy · · Score: 1

    It's not necessarily the "medicine", I regularly lose my sense of smell temporarily in the late stages of a cold these days. The loss of smell generally lingers for a week or so after the cold has gone.

  58. Why is this tagged 'medicine'? by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not medicine. If it was medicine it would be labeled as such AND it would have a provable effect.

    It's water! How often does that need to be said? The only effect it has is as a placebo. And for those who believe that you can't overdose on homeopathy I have two terms for you: Water poisoning and drowning.

    1. Re:Why is this tagged 'medicine'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a fucking homeopathy substance, dumb ass.

      Once fucking again we have a fucktard getting modded up by a bigger fucktard for making the gross assumption that the blurb is actually right! Since when do you trust a fucking Slashdot blurb over the fucking FDA? What a bunch of total fucking idiots we have around here. Yet you'll fucking pat yourself on the back for knowing just enough about something to be dangerous but not enough about anything to be truly useful.

      This place becomes more weighted down by morons by the day but more and more we have people around here who just can't stop patting themselves on the back for being wrong!!! When the fuck is this going to end so we can get back to real conversations instead of witless one liners?

    2. Re:Why is this tagged 'medicine'? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It's not a fucking homeopathy substance, dumb ass.

      They advertise it as such and it does meet the (flawed) legal criteria to be considered a homeopathic substance.

      It's "2x" on the homeopathic scale, which means it's diluted 100:1. And there's plenty of substances that are still quite potent at that dilution. Hell, I can think of a few drugs which would be effective at 100,000:1 dilution.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Why is this tagged 'medicine'? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      It's not medicine. [...] It's water!

      But salt (solution 1:10^3) is an effective homeopathic remedy against dehydration!

  59. Zicam Works by theflea912 · · Score: 1

    If one does a little digging and actually reads the letter the FDA sent to the company, they said that the "FDA has concluded that these products MAY pose a serious risk to consumers who use them....". Whereas, the press release says "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today advised consumers to stop using three products marketed over-the-counter as cold remedies because they ARE ASSOCIATED with the loss of sense of smell (anosmia)." The two differ a lot in meaning. The message to the company says that there could be a connection, whereas the news release just says there is a connection. Personally, I think that the FDA is being overly aggressive. The Obama admin. has encouraged a change from the (awful) years of Bush. Likewise, the FDA has taken a very aggressive stance toward companies. PS- I have used Zicam and it works, and I can still smell! Sources: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm167065.htm http://preview.tinyurl.com/lq68wd

  60. Be wary of supplements by noidentity · · Score: 1

    I read Dan Hurley's Natural Causes and it opened my eyes to the supplement industry, and the relative lack of regulation. I recommend it to anyone taking supplements, including just vitamins.

  61. Re:Fucking idiots by syousef · · Score: 1

    Quick, buy it, pretend that you lost a sense of smell (let me see them prove otherwise) and then wait for a nice settlement check. Just kidding, that would be dishonest.

    I'd love to be the lawyer in that case. I'd show up to court with a gas mask and week old road kill, then collect my cheque when you pass out while offering to represent my client for the counter-suit.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  62. Yes, active ingredient is zincum gluconium by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And it's even in an effective dosage, at least that's what I got from this blog post http://cmpalmer.blogspot.com/2005/04/zicam-homeopathic-cold-remedies.html That is weird though, it's a fake "fake drug".

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  63. "Proper" drugs aren't that great either. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

    Not taking "proper" drugs can save your life too. It's a bit of a toss-up.

    1. Re:"Proper" drugs aren't that great either. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not taking "proper" drugs can save your life too. It's a bit of a toss-up.

      Only rhetorically. If taking "proper" drugs kills you one in 10,000 times and not taking them kills you 9 times out of 10, then it is not a "toss up", meaning 50%-50%. Is there a one-word term for "blindness to orders of magnitude"? Most ideologues seem to suffer from it.

    2. Re:"Proper" drugs aren't that great either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a one-word term for "blindness to orders of magnitude"?

      "Human."

    3. Re:"Proper" drugs aren't that great either. by millennial · · Score: 1

      Innumerate.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    4. Re:"Proper" drugs aren't that great either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most ideologues seem to suffer from it.

      I think you answered your own question. :)

  64. No smell sucks by VlartBlart · · Score: 0

    I lost my sense of smell in a motorbike accident (crash helmet wasn't done up and I headbutted a Range Rover at 80mph).

    The crap thing is losing your sense of taste because you can't smell food.

  65. Fraud by TheLink · · Score: 1

    So isn't what the company did fraud?

    They said something was homeopathic (but it isn't) and tried to profit from it.

    And they have caused rather permanent damage.

    --
    1. Re:Fraud by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Really though so is every other homeopathic company. Sure they say its homeopathic water or sugar but really it is just water or sugar there are no differences.

    2. Re:Fraud by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it should be fraud if they are claiming it has benefits.

      (The case I'd be amused to see is a company selling water straight out of a tap, claiming that it's "homeopathic" ... I'm not sure that should be fraud otoh, as there is of course no difference between the substances.)

    3. Re:Fraud by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I recall Coca Cola getting busted for selling tapwater as mineral water (Bonaqa brand IIRC).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Fraud by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I think that makes sense though - whilst both tap water and mineral water are primarily water, there are still different chemicals in them. In the case of homeopathy, there isn't likely to even be a single atom of the original substance left in the water, and hence it really is indistinguishable from water, even on an atomic scale.

    5. Re:Fraud by RDW · · Score: 1

      The problem is that quite low dilutions can still be classed as 'homeopathic', so there's a risk you're actually buying something with an active ingredient rather than the usual harmless pixie dust placebo. There's a good discussion here:

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=530

      "While most homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point that they are indistinguishable from water, that is not a requirement. Lesser dilutions may contain small amounts of active ingredient. If a "homeopathic remedy" contains a biological active amount of a drug as an active ingredient, is it not a regular drug? This is relevant to Zicam because these products are regulated as homeopathic drugs - which means they were allowed on the market without having to provide any evidence for safety or efficacy.The homeopathic exception allowed the manufacturer to simply bypass the usual requirements, even though Zicam is not really homeopathic but contains biologically active levels of zinc."

  66. A scientific experiment... by marciot · · Score: 1

    The article does not explain whether zinc in general causes you to loose your ability to smell, or whether it is that putting zinc up your nose causes you to loose the ability smell. In the interest of science, I will perform a scientific experiment with Cold-Eeze lozenges, which unlike Zicam, are typically taken orally. Here I have two Cold-Eeze lozenges and a bottle of perfume.
    *stuffs one lozenge into each nostril*
    *takes a whiff of the perfume*
    How very interesting, I can't smell a thi... gasp!
    *collapses of axphyxia*
    Conclusion: Zinc can cause premature death, when stuffed into nose.

  67. 70% of taste = 100% Myth. by aywwts4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "For example, about 70% of what you think of as "taste" when you are eating food comes from your sense of smell. Without a sense of smell, your food will taste rather bland and you probably wouldn't be able to appreciate the more subtle flavors (and definitely the aromas) of various foods. Try it yourself. Next time you are stuffed up with a cold, try eating one of your favorite foods and see if it is still as full of flavor as you remember."

    Bullshit. My grandfather and myself both have anosmnia, this lie gets perpetrated as fact time and time again with only the cold "evidence" as backup.

    My grandfather is locked in a trunk with a skunk and not noticing smell-less, I am 90% there, I didn't believe him when he said taste was not affected, he is a wine connoisseur. I can't smell most foods, and I was conscious of my gradual loss of smell since I knew he couldn't smell. Everything tastes absolutely 100% A-OK. If we have colds, everything tastes wrong and dull just like it does for everyone else.

    Smell is important for many reasons, gas leaks mainly, (my grandfather almost died) 70% of taste is not one of those reasons.

    The is almost no research done into anosmnia, so somehow this smell myth has never been challenged. We taste great, I am an excellent cook, and a connoisseur of many items, with an ability to taste subtle flavors most miss, often accurately pinning down variations in ingredients, compared to my smell-full family have unrefined tastebuds and any X is an X, with no variation in quality.

    --
    Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    1. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I lost my sense of smell as an infant, and I know that I miss a lot. Most herbs are pretty much bitter leaves to me, lots of spices are mostly a lost cause, and artificial fruit flavors in candy are pointless (I notice the different levels of sweet and tart, that's it). Texture does a lot for me. I have not bothered with alcohol because (a) I am a very grounded sort of person who likes to stay in touch with my senses and mental abilities and (b) it's pretty much just the alcohol flavor, the best stuff would probably just taste like nice fruit juice to me.

      The sense of smell is a funny thing. Apparently people are likely to mentally "fill in the blank" for what they should be smelling when they have lost the sense. It is easy for it to be a phantom sense. You quite likely partially taste the subtleties and subconsciously fill in smells to go with them. But that's only because you know what to fill in. And not all people will do the fill-in job as well as you when the sense of smell leaves them.

      Things you may be filling in (reports of differences between what's described to me and what I get):

      Is citrus zest anything more than bitter and perhaps a little hot? If so, you're filling in the gap.

      Are cucumbers bland? If not, you're filling in the gap.

      Is plain coffee just plain bitter? If not, you're filling in . . .

      Are different candies just variations on sweet and sour? If not, then . . .

      Do herb-infused oils do anything special for you? Is so, then . . .

      I can't think of anything else now, but you get the idea. Smell is very closely linked with memory -- smells easily bring memories to mind and memories easily bring smells to mind.

      That said, there is a lot to be enjoyed without the sense of smell. It's just a narrower field that probably takes some getting used to, and supportive friends and family will help.

    2. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by aywwts4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps that is your situation and I believe you, but I doubt my grandfather fills in the gap 50 years later.

      I can taste all those things fine, but it is not a memory, since I can easily discern quality in all these things, not just "this tastes like coffee, mmmm memory of coffee smell." I have a full range of likes and dislikes in coffee, bitters, sweets, carmely notes, stale coffee, strong coffee, my work serves starbucks and a better local brew, if someone fills up my cup with the starbucks blend not thinking there is a difference I can immediately tell, I cant smell coffee at all, my grandfather really is a wine connoisseur, he runs large taste testing events, you can't fill in the gap to taste the subtleties of wine, the casks they were aged in, etc.

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    3. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you. Since about the age of 9, my nose has been blocked up for 95% of the time (I guess I'm just allergic to everything), and my sense of taste has never altered one iota, as far as I can tell. In the odd hours where I can breathe through my nose, it's not like food suddenly becomes AMAZING, it tastes exactly the same.

      So unless I've ALWAYS had a suppressed sense of taste, I concur, "no smell => reduced taste" is a myth.

    4. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      a bit off topic, but I've been much the same: sniffles and blocked nose for years, either from colds or allergies or whatever. I got recommended what is basically an aerosol of saline to squirt up there a couple of times a day, and bizarely it's fixed me. I've spent years going through Vicks Sinex and similar like it's going out of fashion, and all I needed was salty water. Worth a try...

    5. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're simply ignorant of what you're missing. There's only 4 basic tastes - sweet, sour, bitter, and umami, that are possible to perceive with the tongue. Everything else is smell. So it's not a lie, it's a scientific fact, that every one of us who has ever tried eating sushi (as an example of a food with a subtle taste) after an upper-respiratory infection, knows all too well.

    6. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by cyphergirl · · Score: 1

      Even more offtopic...

      I have the same issue. I've spent my whole life with a congested nose. I've tried every medication on the market at one time or another, done allergy testing (only thing that came up was dust and cockroaches -- great) and even had surgery (they cauterized my sinuses to shrink them... fun). The surgery gave me relief for about 6 months and then the congestion came back. Claratin seems to do the best job, although even on a great day my sense of smell just isn't where it should be. But it's never affected my taste that I know of.

      Maybe I will try the saline.

      (and why is slash not letting me insert blank lines today?)

      --
      --Insert catchy .sig line here--
    7. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by cyphergirl · · Score: 1

      Oh; nice -- it inserts them, but preview shows without them.

      --
      --Insert catchy .sig line here--
    8. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, give it a go. I've never had classic hayfever symptoms - no streamign eyes/nose - just congestion. Piriton/Clarityn didn't do much, Vicks Synex and other similar cold relief did but too much use has the opposite effect as it irritates the membranes and makes them close up again - I was really negative that salt water would do anything at all but my dad (who has had nasal polyps removed under anaesthetic - nice! hope it's not genetic...!) had a can of this stuff so I thought what the hell.
      It's sorted me out. I don't even have to use it every day after a few weeks use, and for extra bonus points it's stopped me snoring which the missus is very happy about. Give it a go, fingers crossed it helps you out.

    9. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      What you probably have is an inability to smell through your nose. My brother has this. volatile chemicals necessary for smell that come in through his mouth (ie off of food or drink) he can process, but he cannot smell through his nose.

      I'm curious as to whether there is some sort of obstruction in his sinuses, or just an odd distribution of the smell receptors in his sinuses that favor smelling things in his mouth to the exclusion of smell through nasally inhaled breath.

      He frequently argues with me as to the biology of tasting vs smelling because he admits to being able to taste more than the 4 basic tasts, but refuses to admit that any other component of taste is due to an at least partially functioning sense of smell. He could just be obstinant becuase he knows it annoys me, he is my brother. Although, he is a fighter pilot, and I'm not sure exactly how much biology is required before they let you start shooting things out of the sky ;)

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      I wanted to make one comment... two people can lose their sense of smell even in the same way and experience it differently. Unfortunately I really don't have time (I'm at work, been interrupted several times just while typing this) to go find sources now, but I have read fascinating studies on the other parts of the brain that receive signals from the olfactory nerves. Most of us think of the olfactory bulb, which is what mostly processes the smells that we perceive. But there is a lot more going on in the background. Pheromones, for example, are not detected, but go right to another part of the brain that controls sexual response. Another part of the brain that triggers memories associated with certain smells is also involved, and etc.

      There are also differences in the way the male and female brains are wired and what parts of the brain receives signals from the different sensory nerves. I would be interested to know the gender of each person who has given an account of their hyponosmia or anosmia, as well as if it was from birth or if the sense was lost later in life. It's quite possible that these factors are influencing each person's individual experience more than we realise.

      I have an unusually strong sense of smell, and am very close to someone who is anosmic. This has always been a subject of fascination for me for some reason, so I am really enjoying hearing the responses on this topic.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    11. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by aywwts4 · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you there.

      It is no obsruction, I can breath just fine, but the idea of smelling with my mouth isn't impossible. Of course then calling it smelling and not taste becomes something of a convoluted argument. If some taste/smell hybrid fuctions still work I don't doubt it, but 0% of them come through the air and my nose. This has been independently and scientifically verified on a car ride, windows rolled up, with my father, after he ate a lot of chili. We really can't smell.

      The real point is this, the "When you have a cold things don't taste right, so that's why sense of smell is 70% of taste" Obviously is wrong, something else is at work in that instance where it negatively effects the taste of those who cannot smell.

      Perhaps I am able to taste what others must smell. I have always placed my taste buds above many of my peers. (Hey, I can't smell, nobody faults the blind man for saying he can hear better than most) Maybe my tongue is taking over for what is missing elsewhere.

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    12. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that "loss of sense of smell" can mean many different things. The whole olfactory system is complex and not well understood. There are various parts that detect different things.

      My guess is that both you and your grandfather still have partial or full sense of smell on the "back" your olfactory system (that is the passageway between your mouth and olfactory system) but have lost the ability to detect scents from the air through your nose.

      And of course your tongue still provides taste but it's not the full experience.

      All of this is very hard to quantify though. What you think of as "tasting" may not be what others are talking about.

    13. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by aywwts4 · · Score: 1

      I'm not ignorant, I was born with a working smeller and it worked fine until I was twenty, as smells began fading away I was conscious of it and made a conscious note to look for variation in flavor, since I too doubted my grandfather as you doubt me, I once said all the same things until experiencing it first hand. It really is a weird feeling, when you realize nothing smells like anything, or the one time my wife cooks something and I sniff and go... What is that, what are you cooking, I smell something! Wow! (that doesn't happen much anymore)

      And yes, its a scientific fact, until you really start digging and find out how few scientists really give a crap about anosmia and olfactory research, the "foremost expert" on anosmia was dubbed that by others, after writing a single paper, as the "foremost expert" he gets tons of mail from sufferers, and aggregates some of the info, but no formal or scientific study has been conducted. Also most research backing up the claims you put forward never studied an anosmia sufferer, and while some may lose full taste as the first reply to my post did at birth, clearly it is not all. The idea which you just want to throw out and explain away mine and others in this threads personal experience is bad science, since you are presented with data which doesn't fit in the established commonly held belief.

      Just because the finding has been printed and repeated ad-nauseum, doesn't mean the original research ever was, or wasn't flawed. Also, any unquantifiable thing like "% of taste" which is able to be pinned down with an exact percent should raise some red flags. Really, 70%, not 60%, not 80%? but 70-75 percent exact. It sounds a lot like it was pulled out of somewhere just like all old wives tales to lend an air of credibility.
      "Most" you can question, "70-75%" now that is obviously hard science.

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    14. Re:70% of taste = 100% Myth. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      A neti pot is what you want, basically it's a doll sized tea pot so you can pour the saline into the upper nostril with your head sideways over a bowl or the sink. It flushes out most of the mucus, allergens and bacteria, most people do it 3 or 4 times a day when necessary. I find it burns a bit but well worth the temporary discomfort for the longer term relief, and tap water burn a bit more than saline.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  68. Pro Zicam by myspace-cn · · Score: 1

    Our family uses the disposable swabs. Both the allergy and the cold swabs, not the spray for several years now. Nobody has this problem. But it has shortened colds. And helped with allergies. (None of us use any nose sprays by any brand)

    Before we all go off the deep end and get's yet another "alternative cure" (regardless if you agree or disagree it's a cure) banned in lieu of big pharmacist, expensive drugs, big hospital bills, questionable safety in our vaccinations, all while having no health care, and a government which has welfare for banksters, warfare and surveillance.

    Ever think this might be purposely targeted so you'll have no cure to specially crafted bugs which accidentally escape super labs?
    I don't know that it is, or isn't and I ain't trying to be paranoid, I am just throwing the idea out there, cause I'm fucking sick and tired of the lies that come from my government, to the point where I don't trust anything they fucking say anymore. Which leaves me with validating facts on my own. The media has literally become a dangerous cult.

    I don't know about you, but I am not willing to give up a product which frankly worked fine for my family several years now, in exchange for a Goebbels Media pushing a fucking "Prescription for America" when no opposing views including Single Payer were allowed in discussions.

    The debate about if it's homeopathy or not, I don't care. It's a political narco profit motivated fascist argument. You go ahead and waste several million or billion on such nonsense and it's research, legal fights, and bureaucracy.
    Keep in mind they are already trying to fuck with the codex.

    I am much more simple.
    I go by if the fucking thing works or not.

    In OUR family's case zicam swabs (Cold and Allergy) works just fine, no loss of smell. We also followed the instructions carefully.

    I can't speak to the spray.

    We also use oil of oregano, and many other food supplements.

    Of course all this is my opinion, and as it should be implied. Ask your friends and neighbors if they have problems. Not what they hear on the tv, you want to know first hand experience and use and results. There lay the answer, we don't need all this FDA, DHS, ATF crap, it's already too fucking big and too expensive!

    Turn the tv off.

    1. Re:Pro Zicam by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Yea and when I get a cold I don't take anything you're just buying into the multibillion dollar homeopathic propaganda machine trying to sell you a cure for anything

    2. Re:Pro Zicam by myspace-cn · · Score: 1

      Sweet, take the phrase "multi billion dollar vaccine industry", and change it to "multibillion dollar homeopathic" add the words "propaganda machine" and make the whole thing equal to doing nothing at all for a cold, all in one line.

      Anarchy indeed.

      We learned about Zicam by word of mouth. I can assure you that grandpa and grandma is not workin for the homeopathic industry. Neither are people at work, since... well... um, they're at work and I don't think they make zicam in the tool truck on a construction site.

    3. Re:Pro Zicam by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but when homeopathic companies and individuals around the world make obscene amounts of money lying to people about a product that doesn't work telling them it will make them feel better and then the people buying it complain about vaccine industry propaganda somethings not right.

  69. Re:Fucking idiots by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Nah, not dramatic enough. What you do is lock up a fridge full of meat and veggies, unplug it and let'em set in the AR sun starting in June, and schedule the trial for late August. You dramatically have the fridge wheeled in, don your WW2 era gas mask, unseal the tape and let'er rip.

    Granted by doing so you are probably breaking the Geneva Convention on cruelty to prisoners or something, but we are on a search for justice after all, sometimes sacrifices have to be made ;-)

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  70. I lol'd by Swordopolis · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Furthermore, since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that any glass of water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance, and so by drinking water one would, according to homeopathic principles, receive treatment for every imaginable condition."

    --
    Alchemist: Be Thou For the People
    1. Re:I lol'd by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Coming up next - homeopathic SCUBA gear. We bubble some oxygen through a bucket of water, then pour the water down your throat and gaffer tape your mouth shut before throwing you in the pacific. Since the water in your lungs contains a memory of oxygen, it'll be able to provide your body the same respiratory nourishment as oxygen for a near infinite amount of time. I'm posing this from a boat fifty miles out from san francisco bay, we've had people in the water for over a week now who've not needed to come up for air - that proves it works!

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    2. Re:I lol'd by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Oh, so *this* is why we're always told that drinking water is the healthiest thing you can do for your body...

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    3. Re:I lol'd by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  71. Re:Fucking idiots by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

    There is a little bit of poison in every medicine.

    --
    - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  72. claims make little sense by jipn4 · · Score: 0

    There are about 130 cases of loss of smell "after" application of Zicam. People concluded it was the Zicam because after squirting it into their nose too vigorously, they experienced pain and then they lost their smell later. But it would be hard to get this stuff up your nose far enough to reach your smell receptors, and people who did were not using it as instructed ("So he held the nasal gel to his nose, pumped and inhaled.").

    A more likely explanation is that in hundreds of millions of uses every year, some people experience loss of smell by chance (it's fairly common), and among those, some people used it incorrectly or irritated their nose when using Zicam and drew the wrong conclusions.

    It's probably no big deal by itself if Zicam gets taken off the market: there is little evidence that it works. It's also mislabeled because it isn't actually "homeopathic". But the principle and reasoning itself are disturbing.

    1. Re:claims make little sense by bobKali · · Score: 1

      Isn't is a little odd that a manufacturer would associate themselves with homeopathy to add legitimacyto their product health claims???

      I suspect that Zicam doesn't do a damn thing, and I really doubt that with the huge number of people who take it that an average of 13 people per year losing their smell would be a large enough number to even make the assertion of some sort of causal relationship - hell I don't even see any correlation there.

  73. What's the smaller risk to my sense of smell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to wonder if my sense of smell is more at risk if i DON'T use it.
    Someone needs to point out that this stuff really seems to work and, in my case at least, without damaging the sense of smell. It's one of the few medications that I will use because it saves me days of suffering from a cold. I'm going to stock up for next winter before it's off the shelves.

    35 million products sold, 130 cases of lost smell for taking a medication that treats colds, meaning that those taking it already had a cold or were developing one. So just what is the frequency of permanent anosmia after a cold for those that haven't taken the Zicam product).

    From the Zicam website:
    "Since Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal Cold Remedy products were first introduced in the market in 1999, more than 35 million retail units representing over 1 billion doses have been sold"

    "It is well understood in the medical and scientific communities that the most common cause of anosmia is the common cold, which Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal gel products are taken to treat. Given the enormous number of doses sold and colds treated, there is no reason to believe the number of complaints of anosmia received is more than the number that would be expected in the general population.

    I just wish they would do a proper study of risk and effectiveness.

  74. Re:Fucking idiots by daniorerio · · Score: 1

    Except it is marketed as not being a medicine (homeopathic) otherwise it would have been required to mention said loss of smell as a side effect.

  75. Without RTFA.... by Caustic+Soda · · Score: 1

    "10 years of experience" does not constitute "scientific evidence"

  76. Mod parent up by maXXwell · · Score: 1

    This is the single most coherent remark I've seen about this story. Unfortunately critical reasoning in the mainstream media doesn't pay the bills, so we'll never see it reported there.

  77. Memory of Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Chemistry is not enough. It's 2009 here. Quantum physics might be more appropriate. Anyway...

    # Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions.
    Elia V, Niccoli M.
    Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999 Jun 30;879:241-8.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10415834

    # Permanent physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions of homeopathic medicines.
    Elia V, Baiano S, Duro I, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Nonatelli L.
    Homeopathy. 2004 Jul;93(3):144-50.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15287434

    # The 'Memory of Water': an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions.
    Elia V, Napoli E, Germano R.
    Homeopathy. 2007 Jul;96(3):163-9.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678812

    1. Re:Memory of Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Elia V" is an author on all 3 of those. I can't find any other pro-memory of water studies without his (her?) name on it.

      Hmmm.. maybe the results are bogus?

    2. Re:Memory of Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about reading the papers instead of guessing that they are bogus?

      These are three very famous papers from the same chemistry professor that didn't believe in homeopathy. He tried the first test in 1999 and found unexpected and unexplicable results. Then again different tries in 2004 and 2007.

      Other authors and papers:

      # High Dilution Effects: Physical and Biochemical Basis (Handbooks of Behavioral Neurobiology)
      Nirmal C. Sukul and Anirban Sukul
      Hardcover: 130 pages
      Publisher: Springer (1 Jun 2004)
      Language English
      ISBN-10: 1402021550
      ISBN-13: 978-1402021558
      Table of Contents:
      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/1402021550/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/277-5679810-9614339?ie=UTF8&p=S00B#reader-link

      # Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview.
      Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14619985

      # Can low-temperature thermoluminescence cast light on the nature of ultra-high dilutions?
      Rey L.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678813

      # Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride.
      Rey L.
      Physica A 2003, 323, 67-74.
      http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf

      etc...

  78. Re:70% of taste = 99.44% Myth. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I concur.

    I have virtually no smell sense either, and I taste mostly okay. It might have upped my tolerance to outre tastes, but the normal tastes come through just fine.

    But there has to be some corner case where some fragment of taste gets affected. I can't taste the difference between different brands of saltines. But they all taste "like saltines", so that's fine with me.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  79. Re:Fucking idiots by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Quick, buy it, pretend that you lost a sense of smell (let me see them prove otherwise)

    Nose, meet bucket of vomit. Next up, meet my friend, Skunk. Next up, ...

    I'd like you to see not react at all.

  80. Homeopathy is a SCAM by fateswarm · · Score: 1

    Look about it. They have "cures" that "get better the smallest the amount of "cure" in the water" (e.g. 1nanograms to make it "better") . They are butt crazy.

  81. Perhaps my farts DO SMELL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps my farts DO SMELL?

    I've used Zicam nasal pumps to clear my nose effectively. I hadn't noticed a complete loss of smell, but I do notice that my coffee doesn't has the same level of aroma that I recall from years ago.

    I know I haven't lost my sense of smell completely because cats still stink to me.

  82. Zicam is in big trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good friend of mine complained of these symptoms years ago. And he's still suffering. So I believe this is indeed true. I would sue the makers of Zicam, straight to hell.

    I had sinus surgery a while ago and temporarily loss my sense of smell (and taste). If you've never experienced that, I can't express enough the terrible psychological effects of it. It's hell.

  83. Re:Fucking idiots by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...pretend that you lost a sense of smell (let me see them prove otherwise)...

    Since your claim is that the nerves are damaged, a quick fMRI would prove that your brain is receiving signals from you undamaged nerves.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  84. homeopathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Van: Calling all scientists! Calling all scientists! Be advised that there will be a worldwide conference on global warming in Kyoto, Japan.
    Scientist: I have a degree in homeopathic medicine.
    Van: You've got a degree in baloney!
    [hits scientist with blast of water]

  85. You insensitive clod: by Kratisto · · Score: 0, Redundant

    My sister died that way!

    --
    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
  86. To all you nay-sayers of homeopathic medicine: by DisKurzion · · Score: 0

    I have two words for you: calms forte

    Best sleep aid/anti-anxiety on the planet. 4 of those and you'll have one of the best night's sleep in your life.

  87. Matrixx and "science" by bartwol · · Score: 1

    "Matrixx Initiatives stands behind the science of its products and its belief that there is no causal link between its Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal gel products and anosmia," said William J. Hemelt, Matrixx Initiatives' acting president. "It is well understood in the medical and scientific communities that the most common cause of anosmia is the common cold, which Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal gel products are taken to treat. Given the enormous number of doses sold and colds treated, there is no reason to believe the number of complaints of anosmia received is more than the number that would be expected in the general population. There is no reliable scientific evidence that Zicam causes anosmia."

    It would be easy enough to do a controlled study to compare the incidence of anosmia in people with colds using Zicam versus those with colds who don't use Zicam.

    It would be easy enough for Matrixx to base their beliefs on science instead of speculation.

    But no. They make no attempt to prove safety, even when presented with indications of serious adverse effects. Instead, they confidently speculate that their product is safe, and go into a holding pattern. Studies are expensive. Holding patterns are cheap. Safety be damned.

    For companies like Matrixx (and almost all producers of "alternative remedies") "science" is no more than a word in a vast lexicon of marketing terms. The only objective to which these Charlatans show a genuine commitment is the gross sales of their products. Otherwise, words like "health", "remedy", "studies", "dosage", and other terms that are strictly constructed in the legitimate world of pharmaceuticals, important terms, are just smokey propaganda buzzwords in this vast industry of faux "medicines". The only word that comes to my mind that would properly be ascribed to these people is BULLSHIT. Not surprisingly, it's a word you'll probably never here them use, as it hits too close to where they live.

  88. Side effects may include... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Side Effects May Include...nausea, vomiting, headaches, heartburn, hair loss, diarrhea, dry mouth, water retention, painful rectal itch, hallucination, dementia, psychosis, coma, death, halitosis, lung cancer, mental retardation, brain tumors, paralyzation, sleep loss, internal bleeding, internal combustion, a sudden craving to sniff your carpet, an addiction to cocaine, heroin, PCP, speed and Windex, bone weakening, claustrophobia, acne, playing Everquest II, regular PMS, making Jesus cry, the inability to use proper english in an online environment, homosexuality, AIDS, an urge to stab your spouse, inability to breathe oxygen, urge to watch the Chinese version of Friends, migraines, diabetes, deafness, and of course, the inability to speak properly.

  89. "Normal" loss of smell sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many people would've lost their sense of smell anyway? 130 sounds like a very low number... possibly within the "normal" range for the sample size used? DNRTFA

    Q: how do you keep a skunk from smelling?

    A: give him Zircam

  90. My dad was born without a sense of smell by Matt+Apple · · Score: 1

    My dad was born without a sense of smell. He has 3 smoke detectors and turns on a series of lights when he is cooking (so that he doesn't forget and burn the house down). One interesting thing is that the sense of smell is closely associated with taste(notice how bland things taste when your nose is stuffed up) so Dad likes to douse things in hot sauce or lemon juice so he can get some flavor. Over the years he has chugged a few containers of spoiled milk that would gag a crocodile. There are real dangers though. Someone carelessly tossed an empty container of a chemical into a trashcan next to his workstation. Without a sense of smell he simply breathed it in for hours whereas anyone else would have detected it in seconds. He ended up with chemical pneumonia. Other symptoms include being paranoid about BO and wearing too much cologne that was recommended to him by the pretty girl behind the perfume counter at the mall.

  91. I lost smell for weeks after using Zicam once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was about a year ago. I had severe cold, and couldn't sleep due to blocked nose. I took just one spray of Zicam in each nostril to completely unblock it within few minutes, but the lost sense of smell was terrifying. I mean, yes, the sense of smell when having cold is greatly diminished to begin with, but this was a total and complete loss. I got freaked out back then and did few searches on the internet, where I discovered bunch of other folks with similar concerns. In my case it took about a month until I started regaining some sense of smell (the cold itself was gone within few days), and during that period I felt very miserable in anticipation of having it last for the rest of my life.

  92. Think of the (Homeopatist's) Children! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Guys, we are missing the important bits. This medicine actually does something, it is not really homeopathic, the homeopathic label was put there either to evade FDA regulations and maybe to sell better too. Neither thing should happen, I don't think homeopathic medicine should not sell better than real medicine but what absolutely should never happen is for a medical product to be able to skip FDA regulations.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  93. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used homeopathic remedies for many years and they work like a charm...

  94. I'm sick of homeopathy by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

    mostly because my mother is really into it. I had pinkeye, and was given 100x homeopath pinkeye 'cure'. I put it in one eye, not the other, and the un'treated' eye got better about 2 days quicker. Look, if you want to believe that homeopathy works, drink some tap water. The concentrations will probably be higher, otherwise the water will remember the shape of the active ingredient that was in it at one point.

    Part of the reason for the FDA's creation was to stop the horseshit 'therapies' that were being sold a hundred years ago. They have a responsibility to screen out the bullshit, especially when it hurts people like this.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  95. Re:Fucking idiots by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    It's actually both. There is (was) a swab and a spray version.

  96. Not homeopathic! by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it contains enough Zinc atoms to be detected (let alone have an effect) it's not diluted nearly enough to really be homeopathic.

    Not saying homeopathy isn't a scam, mind, just this once they're being abused by worse scammers.

  97. Re:Fucking idiots by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    they have both a Gel Spray, AND the swabs. i've used the swabs, and they do seem to help, (but you just apply that around the inside of the nostril) If i understand what i'm reading, this is about the Gel Spray, which would be a much larger dose, applied farther inside the nasal passages.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  98. What? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    This doesn't make sense to me. Homeopathic is nothing but water, usually (or some other base, like alcohol), and as we all know - everything is diluted to ridiculous proportions - maybe one molecule of "cure" within billions of water.
    So how can it be dangerous? How much zinc is actually in there? There's nothing actually in it, it's homeopathic!
    I have a pretty open mind when it comes to metaphysical stuff and wortcunning and all that, but the one thing I just can't buy is homeopathy. It doesn't even have good psuedo-logic behind it. Water has no "memory", period. It's such a scam.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  99. Re:Fucking idiots by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Because surely, an FMRI is the simplest method for testing whether someone can smell or not.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  100. Re:Fucking idiots by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    I didn't say it was simple or cheap, but it tells the absolute truth, even is the patient is asleep.

    Plus, it's cool. 8-)

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  101. loss of smell = pull product, lung cancer = ? by willutah · · Score: 1

    So, now that the FDA will be regulating cigarettes, how long will it take for them to figure out they are worse for your health than Zicam?

  102. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something smells fishy. I think.

  103. No recourse but to flee by fugue · · Score: 1

    And finally, all those things that annoy you about sense of smell are probably also helping to save your life. It lets you know that something is wrong (bad air, bad food, bad place, etc).

    It's a bit of a toss-up, really. Yes, there are annoying smells telling you that something dangerous and unhealthy is going on, but the law almost never gives you recourse--all you can do is run. Smokers can smoke, drivers can drive, Bostonians can dump shit into the (less stinky than it used to be) Charles, chemical companies (eg. NECCO) can dump whatever they like into the air, neighbours can spray TruGreen on their lawns... certainly it's not that hard to make a case that the dangerous things you can do something about are rare enough that the ones you can't are more trouble than they're worth. A life spent running from danger is pretty unhealthy, for very intense psychological reasons. It can be better to just deal with a little harm to your body than to live in a perpetual state of being the bitch of whomever is making stinky.

    That said, I still pretty much agree with you :)

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  104. It's not a cold remedy...it's a diet aid! by idearat · · Score: 1

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/fashion/18skin.html?_r=1

  105. a sucker is born every minute by markringen · · Score: 1

    still holds true, as long as people are willing to insert as much of pointless water magic cures there will be a business based around it. it's all hoax and no fact, and thus people buy it because it holds no fact (magic). it's like all those miracle diets, u don't have to diet if you just have a head with a brain on top of your neck...

  106. A little duck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...explained to me what homeopathy is.

  107. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just found this interesting site about health problems and the loss of taste and smell from which some Zicam users have suffered. There is also important safety information here:
    http://www.zicam-smell-loss-lawyer.com/

  108. Toposhaba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make this stuff in China
    So when they try to dilute it with water its full of lead and mercury.

  109. You've just invented a whole new range of medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Market homeopathic medicines at the x1 dilution ratio.
    2. No need to apply for normal million dollar drug testing - hey, they're homeopathic, you FDA bozos, stay out of it
    3. Profit

  110. Data point: actual case by brentlaminack · · Score: 1

    One of my business partners took this stuff about two years ago and completely lost her sense of smell within 30 minutes. Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, it needs to be off the market. Yes, the manufacturer has known of the dangers for years, having been sued numerous times. Yes, they should be held accountable.

  111. Political Motivation by JimThink · · Score: 1
    What are the odds the FDA "discovered" this association because Zicam is a big sponsor on the Rush Limbaugh radio show?

    Naw...that is too much like old time Chicago politics!

    1. Re:Political Motivation by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What are the odds the FDA "discovered" this association because Zicam is a big sponsor on the Rush Limbaugh radio show?

      What are the odds the FDA did not discover this association in the last eight years because Zicam is a big sponsor on the Rush Limbaugh radio show?

    2. Re:Political Motivation by JimThink · · Score: 1
      Touche! Good one... :)

      I guess I can feel safer using products advertised on Fox News and Rush for the next few years.

  112. Zicam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matrixx admits it held 800 adverse reaction reports regarding Zicam: http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/7045#more-7045

  113. NyQuil? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "It drastically reduces, to the extent of almost eliminating, the duration and severity of the cold."

    Interesting. I get those same results from the NyQuil mixture of drugs.

    It isn't sensible to buy NyQuil, because there are many manufacturers of the same mixture that charge much less.

    Since it is no longer possible to buy Zicam in the U.S., there may be times when you would be interested in trying an alternative.