5 ms·

I find this rather obnoxious; if I wish to purchase a purely placebo homepathic remedy, let me. The idea that I will be confused and think the homepathic remedi

by dilap 4y ago

I find this rather obnoxious; if I wish to purchase a purely placebo homepathic remedy, let me. The idea that I will be confused and think the homepathic remedies are actual drugs because they are in the same aisle is absurd. "Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business." -- Thanksgiving Prayer, William Burroughs Edit: I have changed my opinion from "obnoxious" to "annoying" and retract my characterization of the danger of confusion as absurd -- per 3 comments, apparently people really are getting confused! So in light of the above, perhaps there is merit in more cleanly separating traditional pharmaceuticals and homeopathic remedies. It still seems heavy-handed to me personally to require it or file a lawsuit, but the case is not as without merit as I had originally assumed. I do continue to think this is actually just one battle in a war to prohibit alternative treatments entirely, which I still strongly disagree with, but time will tell if that's just paranoia on my part or well-founded.

richbell 4y ago
> I find this rather obnoxious; if I wish to purchase a purely placebo homepathic remedy, let me. Sure, just don't put placebo homeopathic "medicine" in deceptive packaging beside actual medicine. Put it in a section called "water and sugar pills" and clearly label that they contain no actual medical ingredients.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  How about vitamin c? It has about the same level of efficacy as a placebo. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=abstract&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4&type=cdsr&contentLanguage= https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=abstrac...
  - richbell 4y ago
    This isn't really a compelling counter because supplements are commonly criticized for not doing what they're purported to do. I would love for the FDA to enact more stringent regulation on supplements. That said, unlike homeopathic medicine vitamins can at least be argued to contain medicinal ingredients.
    - dr_dshiv 4y ago
      I don’t see why it is such a huffy issue. People aren’t being hurt. Medicinal ingredients present the potential for harm. At least homeopathy doesn’t contain anything at all. It’s not like the packaging says “will cure cancer” or something—the FDA is quite clear on making misleading claims.
  - mnw21cam 4y ago
    Not if you're deficient. Then it has a really strong effect.
hellisothers 4y ago
I forget which logical fallacy this is but they’re not being removed from the store, they’re being moved to their own section. You can still choose to buy them, Twitter is just no longer amplifying them into your feed.
- dilap 4y ago
  Akinetopsia is a very interesting neurological condition where a person cannot see motion. If they try to fill a cup with water, it will overflow. Somehow their brain can't process the idea that the water is rising; whatever level they see it at, that's where they think it will stay. It's a very rare disease, but a related phenomenon in the anlysis of social and political trends is common. So yes, at the moment they are merely suing to create a separate aisle, but I hardly think that is their final goal. (The very first comment on Ars article: "Now if we could just get them to quit carrying that crap altogether…")
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > (The very first comment on Ars article: "Now if we could just get them to quit carrying that crap altogether…") And if news comments were the same as legal trials, then that would be something to be worried about! But "let's not label things accurately because the next step might be banning them" is a slippery slope too far.
    - dilap 4y ago
      Well, let's check back in a couple years. :-) To me, from the tone of the Ars article and browsing the CFI website, it seems clear they will not be satisfied with this minor victory.
      - JadeNB 4y ago
        > To me, from the tone of the Ars article and browsing the CFI website, it seems clear they will not be satisfied with this minor victory. My response is that, if we have to choose between accurate labelling and proper placement with the risk of banning homeopathic medicines entirely, or permitting inaccurate (though probably scrupulously legal) labelling and misleading placement to make absolutely sure that we stay off that slippery slope—then I feel that we have to take that risk. Allowing flouting of regulations and norms for fear of what it would mean to enforce them is just the same as not having regulations and norms.
dooglius 4y ago
Not really, I've nearly fallen for this, it looks like legit medicine if you aren't looking carefully to see the part where it says "homeopathic".
- dilap 4y ago
  OK, perhaps the concern is not as absurd as I thought! (BTW, you should really ideally be carefully reading about any drug or treatment you are about to take :-)
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    My wife came home with a homeopathic treatment once, from CVS specifically because of this reason. The "homeopathy" label was not particularly prominent and didn't raise any alarm bells because she didn't know what homeopathy was.
    - dilap 4y ago
      Thanks, that's three people now; you've changed my mind on this point.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  The one that got me, was I think I remember Oscillococcinum being advertised on TV as a kid. Didn't realize it until I was waiting to check out at the counter and started reading the boxes next to the checkout line because I was bored.
jsmith45 4y ago
That only applies if you know that homeopathic drugs even exist, such that you know to check for them, and avoid them if they are not what you want. I suspect a fairly decent chunk of homeopathic drug sales come from people who think they are normal (evidence-based) OTC medication.
azinman2 4y ago
If you follow that chain of reasoning we might as well legalize meth and put that next to medicines as well. Also tinned food with poisons, or expired meat. This is one of the huge problems with a laissez faire approach - people aren’t sophisticated on mass, don’t know the implications of their choices, and thus why wouldn’t we want regulation when helpful to prevent misguidance? The article cites a case where hundreds of toddlers were injured in a similar situation. Not all of these products are pure placebo, and depending on what’s wrong with you, placebos can be dangerous. Imagine a placebo to take a fever down, for example, which turns out not to reduce a fever at all.
- zokula 4y ago
- carrotcarrot 4y ago
  Comparing something with no effect to something as harmful as meth is entirely disingenuous. At some point we have a right to treat ourselves as we see fit. Taking your fever example. Shall it also be illegal to try to get through a fever without any medication? After all, you're apparently a danger to yourself at that point.
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    There's a difference between saying "here's a thing that makes no difference; take it if it amuses you" and saying "this is as effective at treating your condition as the other medicines you find nearby, so you don't need any of them." Whether or not homeopathy is a good thing, or better or worse than conventional medicine, it isn't the same as conventional medicine, and shouldn't be presented as such.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    The other sibling addresses your second paragraph, but for your first I suggest with this line of reasoning it’s a very slippery slope. To me it’s a bog standard libertarian argument, which I believe to be very myopic.

by dilap 4y ago

richbell 4y ago

> I find this rather obnoxious; if I wish to purchase a purely placebo homepathic remedy, let me. Sure, just don't put placebo homeopathic "medicine" in deceptive packaging beside actual medicine. Put it in a section called "water and sugar pills" and clearly label that they contain no actual medical ingredients.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
How about vitamin c? It has about the same level of efficacy as a placebo. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=abstract&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4&type=cdsr&contentLanguage= https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=abstrac...
- richbell 4y ago
  This isn't really a compelling counter because supplements are commonly criticized for not doing what they're purported to do. I would love for the FDA to enact more stringent regulation on supplements. That said, unlike homeopathic medicine vitamins can at least be argued to contain medicinal ingredients.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    I don’t see why it is such a huffy issue. People aren’t being hurt. Medicinal ingredients present the potential for harm. At least homeopathy doesn’t contain anything at all. It’s not like the packaging says “will cure cancer” or something—the FDA is quite clear on making misleading claims.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  Not if you're deficient. Then it has a really strong effect.

hellisothers 4y ago

I forget which logical fallacy this is but they’re not being removed from the store, they’re being moved to their own section. You can still choose to buy them, Twitter is just no longer amplifying them into your feed.

dilap 4y ago
Akinetopsia is a very interesting neurological condition where a person cannot see motion. If they try to fill a cup with water, it will overflow. Somehow their brain can't process the idea that the water is rising; whatever level they see it at, that's where they think it will stay. It's a very rare disease, but a related phenomenon in the anlysis of social and political trends is common. So yes, at the moment they are merely suing to create a separate aisle, but I hardly think that is their final goal. (The very first comment on Ars article: "Now if we could just get them to quit carrying that crap altogether…")
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > (The very first comment on Ars article: "Now if we could just get them to quit carrying that crap altogether…") And if news comments were the same as legal trials, then that would be something to be worried about! But "let's not label things accurately because the next step might be banning them" is a slippery slope too far.
  - dilap 4y ago
    Well, let's check back in a couple years. :-) To me, from the tone of the Ars article and browsing the CFI website, it seems clear they will not be satisfied with this minor victory.
    - JadeNB 4y ago
      > To me, from the tone of the Ars article and browsing the CFI website, it seems clear they will not be satisfied with this minor victory. My response is that, if we have to choose between accurate labelling and proper placement with the risk of banning homeopathic medicines entirely, or permitting inaccurate (though probably scrupulously legal) labelling and misleading placement to make absolutely sure that we stay off that slippery slope—then I feel that we have to take that risk. Allowing flouting of regulations and norms for fear of what it would mean to enforce them is just the same as not having regulations and norms.

dooglius 4y ago

Not really, I've nearly fallen for this, it looks like legit medicine if you aren't looking carefully to see the part where it says "homeopathic".

dilap 4y ago
OK, perhaps the concern is not as absurd as I thought! (BTW, you should really ideally be carefully reading about any drug or treatment you are about to take :-)
- aidenn0 4y ago
  My wife came home with a homeopathic treatment once, from CVS specifically because of this reason. The "homeopathy" label was not particularly prominent and didn't raise any alarm bells because she didn't know what homeopathy was.
  - dilap 4y ago
    Thanks, that's three people now; you've changed my mind on this point.
mikkergp 4y ago
The one that got me, was I think I remember Oscillococcinum being advertised on TV as a kid. Didn't realize it until I was waiting to check out at the counter and started reading the boxes next to the checkout line because I was bored.

jsmith45 4y ago

That only applies if you know that homeopathic drugs even exist, such that you know to check for them, and avoid them if they are not what you want. I suspect a fairly decent chunk of homeopathic drug sales come from people who think they are normal (evidence-based) OTC medication.

azinman2 4y ago

If you follow that chain of reasoning we might as well legalize meth and put that next to medicines as well. Also tinned food with poisons, or expired meat. This is one of the huge problems with a laissez faire approach - people aren’t sophisticated on mass, don’t know the implications of their choices, and thus why wouldn’t we want regulation when helpful to prevent misguidance? The article cites a case where hundreds of toddlers were injured in a similar situation. Not all of these products are pure placebo, and depending on what’s wrong with you, placebos can be dangerous. Imagine a placebo to take a fever down, for example, which turns out not to reduce a fever at all.

zokula 4y ago
carrotcarrot 4y ago
Comparing something with no effect to something as harmful as meth is entirely disingenuous. At some point we have a right to treat ourselves as we see fit. Taking your fever example. Shall it also be illegal to try to get through a fever without any medication? After all, you're apparently a danger to yourself at that point.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  There's a difference between saying "here's a thing that makes no difference; take it if it amuses you" and saying "this is as effective at treating your condition as the other medicines you find nearby, so you don't need any of them." Whether or not homeopathy is a good thing, or better or worse than conventional medicine, it isn't the same as conventional medicine, and shouldn't be presented as such.
- azinman2 4y ago
  The other sibling addresses your second paragraph, but for your first I suggest with this line of reasoning it’s a very slippery slope. To me it’s a bog standard libertarian argument, which I believe to be very myopic.