CVS’s non-response about their sale of homeopathic “medicine”

This morning I wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s new requirement that homeopathic “medicines” (i.e., expensive water, sometimes with a bit of something else like ethanol or a non-efficacious substance) be tested for efficacy before they could be sold. I tweeted this finding to both the CVS Pharmacy chain and Whole Foods,  both of whom sell the useless quackery, and CVS saw fit to reply—or rather, to tender a non-reply:

screen-shot-2016-12-20-at-2-50-53-pm

Check out the FDA ‘regulations’ they tout. They require neither testing for safety nor efficacy. In other words, “approved” homeopathic nostrums don’t even have to work, but they can even hurt you! That’s OKAY! All they require is that the drugs be labeled as to content.

Shame on CVS, which did a good thing by banning the sale of tobacco products within the last year or so. But now they peddle “remedies” that not only fail to help, and indeed can’t help given the laws of chemistry, but can hurt people who rely on homeopathic rather than scientific medicines.

 

106 Comments

  1. chrism
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    My medical office was next door to the only pharmacy in town for the thirty years I was in practice there. While privately owned, there was a small homeopathy/herbal section, and the owner rather liked echinacea. When he retired and sold the pharmacy to a young pharmacist, a chain (Rexall) financed the purchase, and now the poor devil has to have a huge homeopathy section, supplements that extend several meters beyond any studies showing their worth, and a stand of magnetic wrist bands right in front of the dispensing counter. I believe I have worn out my welcome in the store by pointing it out at each visit for the various prescriptions the leeches now have me taking. It’s all just money in the end.
    I’ll add one thing that’s not money, but an ironic endgame. Last time I filled a script it was handed to me by a person who had angrily left my practice when I declined to approve of her refusal to immunise her children. I wonder how she answers unwell civilians who come in with questions about what they should buy for their ailments?

  2. GBJames
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    sub

    • Filippo
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

      sub

  3. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Bravo PCC(E) – boo CVS.

  4. Karl Heinz
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    I loathe, abhor, and despise homeopathy as well, but it’s a bit of tilting at windmills to place the burden on CVS to stop selling this product (it doesn’t cause cancer, like tobacco). The answer is education. CVS makes a buck off this. Stupid people buy it. Just like a lot of vitamins. The world goes on.

  5. Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    So their response essentially amounted to “because we can sell them we do, and to hell with morality”.

    • Craw
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      Just like with cigarettes?

      So that theory. won’t was here. See my comment below for another theory.

      • Gregory Kusnick
        Posted December 20, 2016 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        Or cheeseburgers, for that matter. We know that too many of those can cause harm (and not just to the cow).

        But Jerry is a staunch defender of consumer choice in that sphere.

    • Linn
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

      It seems that’s the main response by most selllers of alternative “therapies”. I was reading a discussion about multilevel marketing (which often involve alternative products) and noticed that all of its supporters kept reciting how they’re not pyramid schemes. They didn

      • Linn
        Posted December 20, 2016 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

        Sigh. The damn pad is so slow that the page shifts while I’m writing and made me press post.
        Continuing from where I left; They didn’t care about whether it’s possible for people to earn money by joining a mlm or if their products actually work. Their only defense lay in talking about how it’s legal.
        Well, so is internet gambling and smoking.

  6. Stephen Barnard
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    They sell it because it makes money. How could you not make money selling water in fancy packaging to credulous, ignorant rubes?

    • rickflick
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      True, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t all rubes. My guess is there are a lot of highly educated people buying the stuff. What they lack is specific knowledge in physical science and a well developed skepticism. I’m thinking there are many with advanced degrees in various fields other than sciences who hear wonderful things about these “miracles” and “medical breakthroughs” from friends, magazine articles, Deepak Chopra and Dr. Oz.

      • Stephen Barnard
        Posted December 20, 2016 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

        I was using “rubes” for effect. It gave me pause, but I stand by it. They may be educated elite rubes, but still rubes in the broadest sense.

        • GBJames
          Posted December 20, 2016 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

          They are credulous victims of fraud, but victims nonetheless.

          Just because you are an easy mark doesn’t get the criminal off the hook.

          • Stephen Barnard
            Posted December 20, 2016 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

            If someone sells homeopathic “medicine” in good faith, believing it to be effective, are they criminal? I don’t think so. CVS’s motives are entirely different.

            • GBJames
              Posted December 21, 2016 at 7:37 am | Permalink

              What do you mean by “somebody”? Do you mean the check-out clerk? Do you mean the corporation manufacturing the stuff? Do you mean CVS’s board of directors?

              Corporations are making a lot of money knowingly selling water and sugar pills to the credulous, labeling it as treatment from the common cold to diabetes. This is big business, not Grandma making home remedies in the kitchen. It is quite simply fraudulent business activity on a huge scale.

              Here’s one for treating flu. “Safe for the entire family, aspirin-free and works without side effects.

              About 36,000 people die every year from flu. Anti-vaxers and homeopath peddlers are responsible for some good portion of those deaths, IMO. I’d call that “criminal” even if it is legal to sell bogus remedies.

              • Stephen Barnard
                Posted December 21, 2016 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

                I fear you missed my point.

                Joe Random who sells homeopathic “remedies” from his garage, in good faith believing them to work, isn’t criminally culpable in my view. CVS, which sells them solely for profit, has at least an ethical problem, if not a criminal one.

              • GBJames
                Posted December 22, 2016 at 6:54 am | Permalink

                I don’t think there are man “Joe Randoms” doing that. But no matter.

                If Joe Random is selling methyl alcohol as a tonic from his garage while completely believing it is a safe treatment for rheumatism, isn’t he still poisoning people? Isn’t that criminal?

                If Joe is practicing medicine from his garage while lacking medical training, is he not acting criminally?

                Yes, he is acting criminally. The relative seriousness of the crime is another matter, of course. It is the conduct which is criminal, independent of how credulous the criminal is.

      • Scote
        Posted December 21, 2016 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

        “True, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t all rubes. My guess is there are a lot of highly educated people buying the stuff.”

        Even educated people don’t actually know what homeopathy is. The think it is herbal medicine and don’t know about the BS “law” of similars (“Hair falling out? You should take chemo drugs to prevent it!”) or the “law” of infinitesimals (“The less there is, the more powerful it is!’).

        That was the finding of the FTC, and why they say homeopathics need clear labeling to fix consumer misunderstandings. The FTC isn’t banning homeopathy, only saying the labels have be be clear and un-ambiguous about what they are proven to do – which is nothing.

  7. jamesgart
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    You talk in generalities about homeopathic medicine being bad!

    • Kevin
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Well they may not be necessarily bad, but like religion, which is a waste of time, homeopathic medicine is a waste of money. I would, however, never stop anyone from salivating over their favorite tri-purpose lubricant for enemas, chiropractor and Chinese needle thingies.

      • GBJames
        Posted December 20, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        Some people fail to seek real medical help because they think that homeopathic remedies work. These people are actually harmed. One can blame them for their gullibility, but they are victims of fraud no matter how you look at it.

        Homeopathic remedies are not sold on the basis of “this won’t harm you”. They are sold on the basis that they will help you with specific ailments. That make it our and simple fraud in my book.

        • Gregory Kusnick
          Posted December 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

          But with the new FTC ruling, producers and retailers can no longer make unsubstantiated claims about efficacy. Is it still fraud if no one says “This will help you” but consumers choose to believe it anyway?

          • GBJames
            Posted December 20, 2016 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

            Tell me how this is not fraud.

            “No one says “This will help you”” doesn’t really apply.

            • Gregory Kusnick
              Posted December 20, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

              The ad copy and packaging pictured there say “Reduces duration and severity of flu symptoms”. If there’s no evidence for that claim, it will no longer be permitted.

              This seems like a win to me. It takes homeopathic products out of the pharmaceutical aisle and puts them in roughly the same category as organic produce, green tea, and eucalyptus lozenges. If people want to buy them anyway, that’s their choice.

              Of course if you see products being sold that violate the new regulations, feel free to tweet the specifics to CVS. But the FTC apparently sees no justification for removing compliant products from the shelves, regardless of what people may believe about them.

              • GBJames
                Posted December 21, 2016 at 7:43 am | Permalink

                Well there is, of course, no evidence to support the claim. And if the claims are removed, then it ceases to be fraud.

                My mother was a big user of homeopathic remedies. She had a doctor who would prescribe them for her. His license was eventually removed. For fraud.

                My mom was credulous enough not to make the connection, though, and continued to believe in magic.

  8. Kevin
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Mike and Ike’s are worth buying at CVS…different flavors than normal grocery store. Though some might argue they are as bad as homeopathic remedies. I argue definitely not.

    • Dave
      Posted December 22, 2016 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      Mike & Ike don’t claim to cure a disease and lead a person to buy them instead of seeking an actual medical treatment.

  9. Craw
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    I think actually they gave a sensible reply, between the lines: “we will follow the guidelines on this issue.” And I can see their point. What if they refuse to sell a “traditional” remedy? Think of the possibilities for Regressive Left mau-mauing on their alleged racism.

  10. Richard Jones
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    CVS sells homeopathic remedies for the same reason Whole Foods and other retailers do; because fools buy them, and the retailers want the fools’ money.

    • Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Whose money does the medical profession want?

      • Filippo
        Posted December 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

        Do you accept (the evidence for) the efficacy of vaccines?

        • Posted December 21, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

          Each person will have to make up their own mind on that. Evidence is just that. I do not approve of forcing people to be injected. Luckily we have choice.

          • Filippo
            Posted December 21, 2016 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

            Do you accept (the evidence for) the age of the Earth and the universe?

            • Posted December 21, 2016 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

              You sound like an oath sayer.

              • Filippo
                Posted December 22, 2016 at 9:51 am | Permalink

                Pray tell, how old do you say the Earth and universe are, and on what basis?

              • Posted December 22, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

                Your head is full of questions that lead to mixed answers. How many miles long is the internet? Are you asking the right questions? At the end of the day is it the world or you who is the subject matter?

              • Filippo
                Posted December 22, 2016 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

                I respectfully and congenially thank you for your straightforward answer.

              • Posted December 22, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

                You don’t get it do you? I do not claim to know how old the Earth is. That is up to how many variables you want to consider when dealing with the concept of time. Step back a bit and take a look outside the microscope. Have you ever looked up the Humanist Manifesto? It is what you guys are jumping on board with. Here is an interesting quote from your freak fathers: Expanding upon the role the public education establishment should play to bring about the goals described in the Humanist Manifesto II, John Dunphy wrote: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”

          • Filippo
            Posted December 21, 2016 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

            And also the evidence for evolution?

            • Posted December 21, 2016 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

              You mean the evidence for adaptation? In what way do you recommend I receive it?

          • GBJames
            Posted December 21, 2016 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

            Well, Travis, you couldn’t have provided a more weasely answer.

            You were asked if you accepted the evidence. So, do you? If “each person will have to make up their own mind”. Are you not a person?

            • Posted December 21, 2016 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

              You guys know I support people having discernment. How distorted can you make my words? I don’t choose for them, that is the difference between you and I in this matter. You say I answer weasely, but you do not see that you are like the Pharisees of the Bible attempting to lie and turn things backwards on me, and using your strict study to teach but with cold hearts just to enforce more laws. I can tell I put fear into you. You even tried to steal my line from another thread. I see you GBJames. You practice quantitative reasoning like a program, like your friend “flickrick”. I support qualitative reasoning like a human. Nice try hypocrite. You remind me of somebody that I have had much experience with.

              • GBJames
                Posted December 22, 2016 at 7:13 am | Permalink

                You really should go read through Da Roolz before commenting further, travis.

              • Posted December 22, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

                That is exactly what a pharisee would say too. I see the character you choose to be. I know that I am not welcome to speak my mind here, so there is no point for me to continue on your behalf. Let those with eyes see.

              • GBJames
                Posted December 23, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

                Oh Lord Ceiling Cat, smite these tormenters of reason. May thy great paws entrap the pious nostrums and may the endless claptrap be forever buried in thy sacred sandbox.

              • Posted December 23, 2016 at 11:03 am | Permalink

                That was an evil heathen prayer. Let me know if you can see the difference from this one:
                “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”

                See, he does promise to deliver us from evil.

              • GBJames
                Posted December 23, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink

                Why are you here, travis? To spread the gospel? Get the hence.

              • Posted December 23, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

                I can see that I am not here for you. I am here to let people see you in response to me. Thank you for your transparency and cooperation.

  11. Neil Taylor
    Posted December 20, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    I’m British, but am currently visiting the US. This very morning I awoke with a slight eye infection, with red-eye and mucus effecting my vision.

    Next door to my hotel is a CVS pharmacy and so I walked across the street to seek some eye drops to help alleviate the symptoms.

    I went to the back of the pharmacy and lined up at the Help and Consultation counter to get some advice as I did’t know any US brands for eye drops.

    The pharmacist came out and after I explained lead me through the shop to the section of the store dedicated to eyes.

    Gratefully I thanked her, but she then deliberately picked out from the seemingly 100s of brands a particular bottle & pressed it into my hand as her recommendation.

    I said my thanks and she left, then to my absolute shock I realized she had recommended a homeopathic brand at twice the cost of a pharmaceutically active product which I had to find and pick out for my self.

    I could not believe that someone who is working at the consultation section of a pharmacy would give someone a homeopathic brand.

    It was only due to my own caution and knowledge that I understood I was being provided with a totally useless product containing no active ingredients.

    What sort of pharmacist, who has been asked for advice to medically treat a condition, would recommend to a patient a fake medicine?

    So disheartening.

    • loren russell
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

      I’m told that some of the “homeopathic” eye-drops are in fact buffered borate solutions with the non-existent fairy dust added.

      So you might get relief if you don’t read the label.

      Sad thing is that your pharmacist may actually believe in the HP products she stocks.

    • Helen Hollis
      Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:40 am | Permalink

      Hoping your eye condition is better. I am not aware of an OTC remedy that will cure an infection of the eye. Some may help with the symptoms, but not the infection itself. For an infection of the eye, I believe you need a prescription for antibiotic drops. Some drugstores have clinics inside where you can obtain a prescription and be on your way.

      This of course does not address the valid concern you have about a pharmacist recommending homeopathic remedies.

      I have long wondered why they can be sold side by side with OTC that actually works. It is not clear to me why these homeopathic remedies are not sold in a section clearly marked as homeopathic so the consumer is clearly going to that designated section with the purpose of getting expensive water.

      • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        In what section do you think they should put aloe vera? Have you ever used Aloe before?

        • Helen Hollis
          Posted December 24, 2016 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

          Thank you for sincerely asking that question. The section of the store that it would fit most would be where one would find relief from sunburn, or similar irritations as the product speaks for itself as to its contents. Not a good comparison to homeopathic remedies such as “eye itch relief” or “Earache relief” or any other such remedy. Aloe vera is Aloe vera and the consumer should be able to grasp it’s content and purpose. This is all you could come up with?

  12. Posted December 20, 2016 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Maybe we should teach our children about the power of consumer choice. There is no better way to vote in this society other than by spending your dollars where you want them to count. I am sick of people crying out for the government to make choices for them. Grow up. I fought in Iraq for this place and people are quite sad in their mentality. Welcome to the nanny state. I am thankful to be able to drive to the store at night safely, but once I am there I can fare just fine without some agency holding my hand. This is complete insanity. How far does this go?

    • Stephen Barnard
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

      Purported remedies should not be advertised or promoted under false pretenses. It’s that simple.

      • Posted December 20, 2016 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

        I do agree with you that lying is bad. But it is not that simple. We are talking about government regulations which you probably trust way more than I do. I promote discernment among the people around me. That is what I can do. I don’t cry for Govt to do something for me. I do what I can. I think we should learn and strive to be better. You lose hope in the people around you and just give everything up to be decided for you. Don’t you even see how sad it is? People have to come out of that hole, otherwise… forget it.
        So can we just try to promote discernment among each other before jumping to Government regulation? That is all I am asking for what I did and continue doing for this place and the people here that I still believe in. This is real life and I saw first hand what can happen when people lose their ability to discern things properly. This means more to me than it does to you because you have not experienced the difference of what you have, what I fought for. It is not so simple like you think and tell others.

        • Filippo
          Posted December 21, 2016 at 4:47 am | Permalink

          “I do agree with you that lying is bad. But it is not that simple. We are talking about government regulations which you probably trust way more than I do.”

          You’ve made your point about the government very thoroughly. (I’m reminded of A.C. Grayling’s story about the Hungarian parliamentarian.)

          Regarding what you “continue to do for” (U.S. citizens/consumers), are you still on active duty in the military and. if so, specifically what do you continue to do which warrants your repeated pointed mention?

          Are you no less distrustful of private corporate tyrannies (that treat flesh-and-blood human beings as “capital” and a “resource”), especially defense contractors that line up at the corporate welfare trough and seek to socialize (have the taxpayer pay for) the costs of research and privatize profit with no return to the taxpayer? Regarding gov’t regulation, do you wish to do away with, e.g., the FDA and OSHA?

          • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:26 am | Permalink

            Did you not know this government is a corporation?
            “The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.cooperation of all the major media outlets supports that they are helping each other to keep their position.”
            If you want to know more please do research on that topic. I will post the link at the bottom of this comment. Find out what religion your “government” is obsessed with, but you should have noticed by now since they erect idols everywhere.
            Use your own mind. Type in google “can I stop” then wait to see what suggested searches show up.
            If you don’t want to see anything in this direction, then just enjoy pharma and corporate government and the media telling you to hate and fear one another. I hope they guide you to a wonderful place.
            https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-states-america-country-corporation-mohsen-salehi-t-gemba

    • rickflick
      Posted December 20, 2016 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

      Americans spend more than $30 billion a year on alternative medicine which doesn’t work, and sometimes leads to injury or death when scientific treatment is delayed. People are simply unaware of the facts. I’d say the government has a roll to play. They can try to educate the consumer, but also force these charlatans to prove what they claim. There isn’t a much better use for government than that.

      • Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:17 am | Permalink

        That would be great if I trusted what NBC and the government tells me. But at this point in history, I don’t. Can you elaborate on “alternative medicine which doesn’t work”? What do you base this huge blanket statement on? I agree that most things at the market are crap, but I want to see how you received your discernment that you want to teach me. Can I trust that you are aware of what you are saying or are you just repeating things that you have never truly looked into? This is a pattern these days that you have to watch out for on the internet. I would love it if the government was actually interested in helping you with your request, but I think there is a bit more thought put into it than just that.

        • rickflick
          Posted December 21, 2016 at 5:26 am | Permalink

          “are you just repeating things that you have never truly looked into?”

          Yes. I’m no expert on the subject of alternative medicine. I have not researched the subject exhaustively. My sources are lost to time and I suppose, to be completely fair, I should do a refresh on the subject. Do you have any sources that make you skeptical of the alternative medicine skeptics?

          I suppose if you and I were to team up, we could cover the field more quickly. Sound good?

          The first thing in any research on a claim is to assume the skeptical position and ask the purveyors for evidence that their product works, don’t you think. That’s the scientific method. You take a claim: “This alternative dilution of ragweed will cure your hay fever”, and you assign the burden of proof to the claimant. You say…”I’m from Missouri. Show me”.

          So really what the question boils down to is to find out if the homeopathic “medicine” folks can produce solid evidence for efficacy (and safety). So, actually, we probably shouldn’t be asking ourselves if we can prove it doesn’t work. We should ask the purveyors if they can prove they aren’t selling snake oil.

          And, now we’re back to square one because that’s the very same question the government folks are asking. They now have a ruling which says, if you want to sell shit as medicine, you’ve got to prove it works. I think we can agree that’s our (you and me) approach too. The advantage, of course, of the FDA asking the question of the alternative medicine industry, is that you and I have such a small voice their likely to ignore little old you and me. So along comes our big brother to save our asses on the school playground so to speak. I kind of like that idea. Now all we have to do is sit back and wait for the scientific questions to be answered. Once the data comes in, we can make up our minds about what to take for hay fever. Before that happens, I’d suggest sticking to good old medicine type medicine: “take two decongestants and an antihistamine and call me in the morning.

          • rickflick
            Posted December 21, 2016 at 5:39 am | Permalink

            That should be FTC not FDA.

            • Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

              So right off the bat I am noticing a big problem with a blanket phrase. When we say “alternative Medicine” we need to ask; Alternative to what? And the consensus says “Alternative Medicine” is: any of a range of medical therapies that are not regarded as ORTHODOX by the medical PROFESSION, such as herbalism, homeopathy, and acupuncture.
              Herbalism includes the use of aloe vera for topical skin rash or it can be used as a laxative if digested. There is no debate of whether that works or not. I think we have all used Aloe on sunburns or poison ivy, and many have used it as a laxative and can know by experience that it works.
              I want to also note the #2 definition of “Profession”: an open but often false declaration or claim.

              So starting with Aloe Vera, what is the problem with an alternative to the orthodox profession?

              • rickflick
                Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

                Alternative substances all have to be tested in controlled trials. Look up “controlled trials”.

              • Posted December 21, 2016 at 11:15 am | Permalink

                I am familiar with controlled trials and that it is quantitative rather than qualitative. That is a very important difference. Quantitative methods limit the results to number analysis. The results tend to be based on the assumptions brought to the experiment. This makes it easy to control the market… Qualitative experiments can give you rich data, and can also reveal more than you set out to find.

              • rickflick
                Posted December 21, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

                You’re totally wrong here. The quantitative aspect describes the qualitative variable under study. If a substance is supposed to reduce fever, you must set a numerical value to what you mean by “reduce” and then test it many times. There is not a conflict between quantitative and qualitative testing. You haven’t done your homework. Your conclusions don’t make sense. Then you’re off talking about conspiracies. Try to focus on one small step at a time. Once small step for mankind.

              • Posted December 21, 2016 at 11:56 am | Permalink

                It is not that simple once again. I can’t believe how many times I have to correct you guys on your claims of facts. Here we go. Quote from https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/8689892294c2cf93a26468.pdf:
                “By mixing methods in our RCT we generated both convergent and divergent findings. Some quantitative methods or analyses produced findings that conflicted
                with our qualitative approaches. It is often tempting to ignore divergent findings as they can initially be seen as undermining efforts to triangulate particular findings. In our experience, this is a mistake. So we urge caution, encouraging engagement with divergent findings rather than reverting to a quick-fix consensus. In our work, divergent findings contributed to our interpretations of the data, helping to generate
                new questions and suggesting new lines of analysis. Examining quantitative findings with qualitative data, even when they diverged, pressed us to consider alternative
                explanations and to pursue new analyses in order to better understand the patterns we were finding.”

              • rickflick
                Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

                Does not compute.

              • Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

                Are you a computer or do you have a human brain? Qualitative research is very different than quantitative research and requires human logic, not binary logic that quantitative research relies solely on. Computers can hardly perform object recognition after all… Are you getting a sense of what I am saying as a human? If not I must consider that you are just running a binary logic program, and there is not much I could really say to you at that point.

            • Dragon
              Posted December 22, 2016 at 10:10 am | Permalink

              Travis, the research you quote from does not support your assertion. You are quote mining. That paper is on school principal professional development, in the greater context of social sciences. They also never, ever suggest that you ignore the quantitative and accept only the qualitative. Instead, they suggest “We conclude with a discussion of how we can use qualitative and quantitative approaches in tandem in order to maximize the potential of mixed methods in RCTs.”
              Social science subjects like the efficacy of professional development are not as conducive to clear controls as medical studies. Your citation fails to validate your position. Try again.

          • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

            Hey, I appreciate your intelligent reply. I will work with you so that we can reach a better understanding between our research. Give me some time to see how I can be of service to this common goal. Thanks for not acting like the repeaters. That keeps my hope in humanity alive. Looking forward to getting to the bottom of this.

            • rickflick
              Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:32 am | Permalink

              I fear you may have missed my point.

              • Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

                Yea, I get that you are sarcastic. That reveals you. Could you respond to this with intelligence or no?
                So right off the bat I am noticing a big problem with a blanket phrase. When we say “alternative Medicine” we need to ask; Alternative to what? And the consensus says “Alternative Medicine” is: any of a range of medical therapies that are not regarded as ORTHODOX by the medical PROFESSION, such as herbalism, homeopathy, and acupuncture.
                Herbalism includes the use of aloe vera for topical skin rash or it can be used as a laxative if digested. There is no debate of whether that works or not. I think we have all used Aloe on sunburns or poison ivy, and many have used it as a laxative and can know by experience that it works.
                I want to also note the #2 definition of “Profession”: an open but often false declaration or claim.

                So starting with Aloe Vera, what is the problem with having an alternative to the orthodox profession?

              • rickflick
                Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

                Alternative substances all have to be tested in controlled trials. Look up “controlled trials”.

    • GBJames
      Posted December 21, 2016 at 7:54 am | Permalink

      Yeah, who needs laws against fraud? I’m so tired of namby-pamby wimps who fall victim to con artists. It’s their fault!

      /sarcasm

      • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:31 am | Permalink

        Yea we should make laws to support large corporations and make it impossible for people to do anything. My wife is a retired International Patent Lawyer. She can see the game clearly from that angle. Does that make sense to you? The con artists are higher up than you think!

      • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        Fraud runs deep these days…
        “The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.cooperation of all the major media outlets supports that they are helping each other to keep their position.”
        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-states-america-country-corporation-mohsen-salehi-t-gemba

  13. Syed
    Posted December 21, 2016 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Homeopathy: Evidence-Based Medical System or 200-Year Old Scam?

    http://www.highya.com/articles-guides/homeopathy-do-these-3-theories-prove-its-effectiveness-an-open-minded-discussion

    • Walt Jones
      Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      The linked article responds to the lack of clinical evidence by diverging into a discussion of the mechanism, after asserting efficacy based solely on the expert’s anecdotal evidence. Wake me up when double-blind clinical trials show a significant effect.

      • Posted December 21, 2016 at 10:13 am | Permalink

        Why are regular herbs thrown in with the quacks? Does the medical profession not derive things from plants?
        I am trying to address the blanket phrase on another comment. What do you think about this?:
        So right off the bat I am noticing a big problem with a blanket phrase. When we say “alternative Medicine” we need to ask; Alternative to what? And the consensus says “Alternative Medicine” is: any of a range of medical therapies that are not regarded as ORTHODOX by the medical PROFESSION, such as herbalism, homeopathy, and acupuncture.
        Herbalism includes the use of aloe vera for topical skin rash or it can be used as a laxative if digested. There is no debate of whether that works or not. I think we have all used Aloe on sunburns or poison ivy, and many have used it as a laxative and can know by experience that it works.
        I want to also note the #2 definition of “Profession”: an open but often false declaration or claim.

        So starting with Aloe Vera, what is the problem with an alternative to the orthodox profession?

        • Walt Jones
          Posted December 21, 2016 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

          Aloe is an ingredient in many burn ointments, and has a known mechanism. It’s a demonstration of the maxim that alternative medicine that works is called medicine.

          • Posted December 21, 2016 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

            You are scratching at sense… we have to watch out for blanket statements.

            • Helen Hollis
              Posted December 24, 2016 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

              I know you are fascinated with Aloe Vera so if you will kindly address my earlier rebuttal to your comment above it would be appreciated.

  14. Ace Biswas
    Posted December 21, 2016 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    I exactly can’t make out what’s the writer’s problem. Does he say homoeopathic remedies acts upon health when it contains no molecule in most frequently used potencies? Even no one is forced to try it. I have several times applied it on myself and its been effacious on many occasions.

    • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:43 am | Permalink

      There are people who just repeat what NBC and the government say. They do not have much experience in life I can tell. Just a whole lot of training.

      • Einstein's idea
        Posted December 22, 2016 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        Rich. You repeat like a parrot. You’ll be shitting down my back next.

        • Posted December 22, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

          You’re out of here. Did you ever read Da Roolz. Jebus!

        • Posted December 22, 2016 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

          This is from the Humanist Manifesto. Is this what you support along with Jerry?
          Expanding upon the role the public education establishment should play to bring about the goals described in the Humanist Manifesto II, John Dunphy wrote: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”

          I see you nasty hypocrites plain as day. Keep revealing yourself for those with eyes to see.

          • GBJames
            Posted December 22, 2016 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

            Sweet baby Jesus, deliver me from the believers.

          • rickflick
            Posted December 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

            The Humanist Manifesto II was written by the American Humanist Association in 1973 and arose from a religious strain of Humanism. Dunphy seems to represent that background in his language. The alternative is Secular Humanism. There exists a Humanist Manifesto III from 2003, as well as a Secular Humanist Declaration written by the Council of Secular Humanism. All these documents may be seen as an attempt to unify the diverse thinking of humanists around the world.
            I don’t think it’s fair to tie anyone here to any movement or manifesto that they haven’t explicitly endorsed. If you see something hypocritical you should probably spell it out with more precision.

          • Helen Hollis
            Posted December 24, 2016 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

            Eyes to see… a common canard tossed out by Christians. Another that usually goes along with it is “ears to hear”. http://biblehub.com/proverbs/20-12.htm
            Hypocrite is a word peppered into the entire bible.
            Are you running a bible study here?

            • GBJames
              Posted December 25, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

              He is, indeed. Travis is confused about which room he wandered into.

  15. Diane Novak
    Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I’ve been using homeopathic products through various practitioners and online companies for years with great results as I am sensitive to allopathic meds. I’m grateful for the folks that makes these products that are plant based.

    • Posted December 21, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Thank you for speaking sense to people who are set on trusting big corporations over personal discernment. I feel like they are promoting an “Idocracy” type of situation where the people are only concerned if it got electrolytes or not…

    • Helen Hollis
      Posted December 24, 2016 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

      If you had an eye infection would you run to the homeopathic remedy or get a script?

  16. cbranch
    Posted December 21, 2016 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Off topic I guess, but my reaction to this is to wonder why Twitter is not a complete joke and discarded as a fad by now. Seriously? In order to respond with more than 100 characters you have to jump through hoops like not only including links but also producing three disjointed tweets, awkwardly numbered and out of order? What a ridiculous way to communicate anything meaningful.

  17. Stephen Barnard
    Posted December 22, 2016 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    There’s a free market solution: http://bulkhomeopathy.com

  18. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted December 23, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Just a friendly reminder: if you want to try some homeopathy, get a glass, write “my homeopathic remedy” on it, fill with tap water, and enjoy. Another remedy could be to cut a branch from a pine tree and sniff the aroma. I might do that one today in fact.

    • GBJames
      Posted December 23, 2016 at 7:22 am | Permalink

      This time of year there are many decorated trees and wreaths available as source material for the sniff-treatment.

  19. William Bill Fish
    Posted December 25, 2016 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    CVS sells homeopathic garbage because they make money.

    • Filippo
      Posted December 25, 2016 at 10:03 am | Permalink

      I wonder if any religious groups fund their annuities in part via CVS investments.

  20. Posted December 27, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Look, let’s leave the regulatory government (FDA) out of the equation entirely. We humans have been doing stupid stuff for millennia, and no amount of laws or regulations will stop us. Also, if you think that legitimate medicines (scientific remedies), approved by the FDA and promoted by the Pharmaceutical companies, Doctors, and Scientists are any safer, just read the label for possible undesirable side effects. These approved remedies kill and maim thousands more than Homeopathic waters.

    • GBJames
      Posted December 27, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink

      Yeah. We don’t need no stinking laws. What good have laws ever done?

    • rickflick
      Posted December 27, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      The FDA probably is responsible for managing a system that saves tens, if not hundreds of thousands of human lives every year. Think about it. No FDA, no assurance of food safety and drug efficacy since June 30, 1906 when the agency was founded. Come to think of it, you and I might not be alive right now if our ancestors had not thought of a way to protect us from crazy snake oil sellers.


%d bloggers like this: