And don’t forget, while there may be people who just fill containers from the tap, most homeopathic manufacturers actually take something dangerous, and dilute it a quadrillion times. But at least once, mistakes were made, and a teething remedy got put on shelves with toxic amounts of belladonna, so this stuff is not without risk inherent to the homeopathic process. There is some pretty stringent supervision of real drug manufacturing, but no one watches the “supplement” makers.
What about the Homeopathic Oath?
“First, do no good.”
Well, I did give her a piece of my mind. I just didn’t press the issue.
Jesus guys, make up your fucking minds!
Yes, and if you are a doctor who recommends homeopathy for anything beyond the placebo effect, then you should be stripped of your license because you failed at science. It’s not hard to find information on homeopathy - its history, its current evidence base, its preclinical scientific basis, they’re all available online for anyone who takes a minute to look for it. As a doctor, when you recommend medication to your patient, or provide guidance on medication they are considering taking, it is your responsibility to understand that medicine and know at least a little bit about it. And “a little bit” about homeopathy includes the bare minimum of “it’s literally just water”.
As for Dr. Oz, he featured Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger” on his show. Then, later, he had Robert F Kennedy and one of his antivax buddies on the show to tout their antivax book. 'Nuff said. The man is an amazing surgeon, but he is not an expert on all things medical, and he has bought into a massive amount of woo. The fact that he endorses homeopathy does not grant homeopathy legitimacy. If Stephen Hawking endorsed flat-eartherism, that would not grant the Flat Earth Society legitimacy, it would make Hawking a laughingstock. We don’t need authoritative arguments on homeopathy. We understand what it is, how it works, and why it cannot possibly work as anything other than a placebo.
I’m not even willing to grant homeopathy the placebo response. You have to have experienced an effective drug at some point, which the placebo then mocks, to evoke a placebo response (there have been several studies demonstrating that non-humans experience the placebo response, but memory-impaired humans either do not, or experience it weakly). It mostly “works” because of regression to the mean (people take stuff when their symptoms of chronic conditions are at their worst, or for self-limiting conditions), observer bias, and wishful thinking.
Even if the placebo response were a consideration, I think it would be unethical for doctors to recommend a treatment based on it. A doctor has no way of knowing whether a patient can respond to it or not, and among those who do respond, responses vary wildly, and then, a particular homeopathic remedy may not evoke it, where something else might-- prescription Motrin might be more effective for someone because it’s a prescription, then simply taking more tablets of OTC ibuprofen with the doctor’s approval, for example. Plus, homeopathics are pretty darned expensive. A doctor ordering an aspirin every four hours for someone might have an effect just because it has the force of a doctor’s order behind it (while someone deciding on his own to take it might be less effective), and it’s very cheap. Homeopathic remedies can drain your pocket pretty fast.
Personally, I think a doctor telling a patient to buy something OTC that he knows won’t do anything real, and crossing his fingers for a placebo response is on even shakier grounds than one who gives someone with a virus penicillin because the patient wants it, thinks it will help, and the doctor just wants to get the appointment over with, rather than spend time explaining why an antibiotic won’t help.
Painstaking research (mostly conducted at stoplights) has shown that people who tap cigarette ashes out their car window virtually always follow with the cigarette butt when they’re done with it (“the world is my ashtray”).
It does not surprise me that Dr. Oz promotes homeopathy, as he has promoted/endorsed multiple forms of quackery and hosted some of America’s worst quacks on his show. He started out as a good surgeon, but his reputation has suffered heavily since then. Now he’s basically a TV ratings whore.
http://www.doctoroz.com/article/dr-oz-homeopathic-starter-kit
They’ll think homeopathy works, and then later when they have something serious, they may turn away from real medicine.
It bugs me that thousands of people do it every minute and it adds up, and that they throw the LIT butts as well, plus the guy I saw yesterday, who threw the empty pack. I remember when I was a kid, and people actually used the car ashtrays, how overflowing and gross they were in smoker’s cars. It’s a lot of ash. Plus, the dangling arm means if I’m behind them, I have to smell the smoke, or roll up my window.
I’m kinda curious why the change? Sometime in the 1990s, it seems people went from using the car ashtrays to dangling their arms out their windows. What caused that? Maybe I should start another thread.
They stopped putting ashtrays in cars unless you paid a few hundred extra for the “smoker’s package” which included an ashtray and a lighter.
We have a 2006 Subaru that came with a lighter and ashtrays. We bought it used, but it had originally been a car for lease. Every rental car I’ve ever had has had ashtrays, even though you can’t smoke in them (rental cars), and the ashtrays may be called “coin trays,” or something. I have seen lighters for sale in places like AutoZone, that you can plug into what is now called the “auxiliary port,” and I don’t think they cost hundreds of dollars. You can also buy those ashtrays that fit in the cup holders.
There are lots of options besides holding your cigarette out the window. And at any rate, since when is “My car doesn’t have an ashtray” an excuse to throw ash or butts out the window? My car didn’t come with a trash can, but I can’t throw garbage out the window.
If anyone thinks they are keeping the car from stinking, they are wrong.
No, not cigs, but I guess Nicotine is a possible treatment for something.
Just like Docs tell you to take aspirin, not willow bark (willow bark contains the precursor ingredient of aspirin, but it tears your gut up pretty awful, so it’s horrible as a way to cure your headache.).
Although, you can buy willow bark powder, or capsules with the powder, as a “natural” alternative to evil Big Pharma’s aspirin, for about 600% of the price of a bottle of buffered aspirin that you can get pretty much anywhere-- any pharmacy, Walmart, the Dollar Store, Target, a truck stop.
ETA: actually, nicotine is a laxative, but it’s fairly toxic compared to other laxatives, which is why you don’t see it marketed as that. This came up recently on another thread, and I did some side reading, but it was mostly internet articles, not stuff in *JAMA *or The Lancet.
Alcohol can theoretically be consumed safely in moderation, and numerous studies have even found health benefits to (very) moderate drinking. Meanwhile, smoking is considered harmful at any level.
Another substantial concern is budgetary. Homeopathic junk is very expensive, also preying on the subset of folks that believe expensive = better. Couple this with the perceived “need” for the health treatment, then someone on low income can easily be throwing away money best used on actual survival needs.
I always believed that if a person is smoking hot, it increases their chances for reproduction. 
I didn’t bring up Dr. Oz to endorse him or homeopathy. He was just an example off the top of my head of an M.D. who endorsed homeopathy. From the article in the OP, the reason that CVS changed their policy was to appease the MEDICAL community. It wasn’t to change their image to satisfy everyone who was unhappy with what’s happening in the medical community.
There are some people in the medical community who endorse homeopathy. That’s why CVS has gotten rid of cigarettes and not homeopathy.
If you disagree with some people in the medical community about homeopathy, that’s a different issue than in the OP, and it doesn’t have to do with CVS.
Lesser known song by KISS?
The percentage of physicians that endorse homeopathy is microscopic (close to a homeopathic dilution, in fact). It wouldn’t make an iota of difference to CVS’ income from physicians if it dropped quack homeopathic products - in fact it might minimally enhance CVS’ reputation among physicians.
It is deceptive to merely state that there are “some people in the medical community” who like homeopathy. There are “some doctors” who endorse “energy healing”, avoiding vaccination, coffee enemas to treat cancer and a whole host of other nonsense. There are tiny numbers of professionals in any field who support stupid and offensive things. There’s no need to cater to them.
CVS is trying to boost its “Minute Clinic” business and separate itself from competitors as a chain supposedly concerned with overall health. Selling tobacco products damaged that image. Selling quack remedies isn’t good for that image either.*
*If only the once-proud institutions like Cleveland Clinic that have gotten into quackademic medicine (CC is starting up a “functional medicine” department) would realize that in promoting this stuff, they’re sacrificing their reputations for the sake of limited short-term profit.
So Cleveland Clinic is a tiny group of quacks?
Top management who thought this would be a good idea and the few people running this operation are a very tiny percentage of all the health care providers at Cleveland Clinic, yes.
I would be willing to bet money there are more physicians who smoke than who use homeopathic remedies.
Linus Pauling.
I’ve started to wonder if maybe it isn’t possible that selling cigarettes wasn’t very profitable for CVS anyway. I doubt people go in there specifically for them. I don’t know too many smokers, but the ones I do don’t buy by the pack much anymore, because cigarettes have gotten so expensive, and they can save money over the per-pack price by buying cartons at tobacco-specific outlets. And correct me if I’m wrong, but cigarettes have a shelf-life don’t they? If they aren’t moving, they become unsellable, and CVS loses money.
Anyway, while there’s satisfaction in pitting things that are annoying, there’s more satisfaction in doing something, even if it probably won’t effect* anything. I’ve already composed a letter to CVS authorities. I’m trying to figure out exactly who to send it to. I will be posting copies on Monday.
*yes that’s the right word