The Decline and Fall of Science-based Medicine

submitted by BiologyIsReal from quackometer.net

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

For me, if I could find studies showing a better performance for an allergy from some homeopathic thing than a drug

That may be so, but homeopathic remedies are not regulated by the FDA, so products claiming to contain the compound often simply do not. A professor of mine proved how common it was to the class by taking a whole bottle of something (sorry, can't remember the exact thing) which should have killed him, but it turns out they were literally just sugar pills.

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't know how a whole bottle of any homeopathic thing could kill anyone. They are very open about how what ever thing they are diluting, it is always diluted to the point where there is nothing of it left. I doubt he took an amount of anything that "should have killed him", I think he was putting on a show and probably knew what was in the bottle before putting on the show. I imagine he was making a point to a class he was teaching, not doing some Houdini version of science where by escaping certain death he proved his point.

I don't know that FDA regulation helps, I don't really trust the FDA after seeing how it and similar regulatory agencies are just run by the industries they should be a check on, and they will always come down on hard any industry or practice that isn't making their patrons money. The biggest problem I see along these lines is when the thing being sold as "x" is not "x" at all. Vitamins and supplements are most susceptible to this. I don't know how a post-manufacture analysis of any homeopathic product could be tested like that because of the extreme amount of dilution involved. I see it in the same league as "Reiki" and "energy" stuff.

I don't want to seem like I'm not very surprised when I see a study, and it's almost always for a remedy/relief for an allergy, that shows a homeopathic product clearly outperform the placebo. I'm not so surprised to see it outperform drugs though. New drugs are always to be viewed with suspicion until their real-world track record can be assessed honestly.

[–]usehername 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I imagine he was making a point to a class he was teaching, not doing some Houdini version of science where by escaping certain death he proved his point.

Most definitely. Maybe it was just an overdose that would have gotten him sick and made him vomit. It was a while ago.

The biggest problem I see along these lines is when the thing being sold as "x" is not "x" at all. Vitamins and supplements are most susceptible to this.

Because they are simply not required to tell the truth by the FDA, same as with homeopathic remedies.

I don't know how a post-manufacture analysis of any homeopathic product could be tested like that because of the extreme amount of dilution involved.

Even at that level of dilution it still has an effect?

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your first point is answered by the point you are asking a question about in the end. Yes, Homeopathy is very open about there being nothing left after all the dilutions they put the compound through. And they say it is effective even though it is so diluted. It is essentially like an "energy" modality as filled with "woo" as any Johnny-come-lately New Age thing even though it predates the Rockefeller investment into medicine and the 'academization' (not a word, I suspect) of the medical profession under the guise of science footnote1 by a lot. The professor might have been relying on his students being ignorant of that fact. I always felt such teaching techniques do more harm than good, like the way "just say no" reduced drug addition to a bad choice made under peer pressure instead reflecting a lot of other more important and socially addressable factors.

Do you think the FDA requires "truth" from those they regulate? Have they started requiring drug companies to do adequate studies on women before selling their drugs to the general public? Do they require all the studies and all the data to be published, included studies that were cut short? You seem to be making light of the revolving door between the companies that are protected by regulation and the closed door, and high costs and fines, to any company trying to do something that might 'reach into their pockets' as they say.

There are independent labs that can check products and offer a seal of approval. This kind of thing is how "organic" produce and organic farming originally marketed itself and protected itself from liars saying their products were not grown in accordance to organic techniques. The Federal government got involved, creating their own certification to undermine independent certification, and we're nearing the point where they will start either: watering down the regulations to the point where it will be meaningless, or make it so expensive that it is not feasible for smallish farms, or find a way to do both. It already is too expensive for a lot of smaller farms, who instead offer savvy customers a tour and somewhat open access (and chances to "volunteer" as free labor) to prove they are on the up and up.

Footnote 1 (and only): You are cordially invited down the rabbit hole which will be very informative and leave you standing alone in a field of conspiracies wondering how you got there and where to go. Enjoy! https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-286-rockefeller-medicine/