But why do you think that “natural” is somehow better? Again, lead and arsenic are certainly natural, as are mercury, radium, belladonna (deadly nightshade), and tobacco.
These natural substances have NOT always been known to be harmful, either. Lead, arsenic, mercury, radium, belladonna, and tobacco have all been touted as beneficial substances and/or medicines at one time or another. We really only know that these substances are harmful because of controlled, scientific studies. Even with this knowledge, lead, arsenic, and mercury can be found today in unregulated folk medicines and herbal remedies.
And how do you know if something “could help with a cold or flu”? Because a former 2nd-grade teacher purports it to do so?
I’ll stick up for EmAnJ here, at least partially. Honey does soothe a sore throat, especially when mixed with hot tea and lemon. (If you feel really bad, pour a shot of whiskey in too!) The tea and the whiskey certainly have negative side effects and potential long-term health effects that are probably greater than those from a dose of cough syrup. However, I have extensive experience drinking both tea and whiskey (and eating both honey and lemon), so I know exactly what effects (positive and negative) to expect and how they correlate with dose. I also am likely to have all the ingredients at hand without a trip to the store. I’m less experienced with the effects of guaifenisin and dextromethorphen, although I’ve used both frequently. I also don’t know what other ingredients might be in the particular brand of syrup on sale today. Both cough syrup and hot toddies are very unlikely to have any serious side effects, but when you consider the popularity of “shotgun” treatments like Nyquil and the (preventable but very real) dangers of acetomenephin overdose when taking more than one medication, there are certainly rational reasons for preferring a hot toddy over a bottle of cough syrup (and, depending on circumstances, vice versa). Nearly identical arguments can be made for other home remedies such as garlic, chicken soup, hot compresses, warm milk, or a cold or hot shower. All of those have mild but real and very well-known effects (intended and side) that can be recognized and evaluated by a layman much more easily than pharmaceutical effects can be.
The problem is when people think that “natural” is the key rather than familiarity with the effects and side effects. An herb that’s been concentrated and put in a pill form is arguably no more natural and certainly no more safe than a synthetic in similar form. I have no more idea of how I’m supposed to feel after drinking foxglove tea (um . . . if your heart stops, is that bad?) than after taking a pill, nor do I have any idea what the typical dosage is or how much is in the packet of tea I got from my local new-age herbalist.
I find that approach to science annoying: that it’s okay to say science is inferior for something that’s going to go away anyway, but if you get something serious, bring on the chemicals. Science is total bunk until you’re dying, isn’t it?
To limit one’s hypocrisy, I suggest one use “natural” remedies the next time they have an illness that can kill them, and see how that works out. If the natural remedy works, then we’ve discovered a new cure! If it doesn’t, natural selection is very natural.
/edit: To actually answer the OP, I think they do it because of confirmation bias and because doing something, even something ineffective, makes them feel like they have more control over the illness. The illusion of control is very attractive.
Wait, so Airborne is STILL using the same marketing strategies? I actually piggybacked on a class action lawsuit against them (despite never buying it myself) and got a check for $40 sent to me - the settlement they had to pay anyone who bought it, thinking it actually does anything to prevent illness.
What’s really going on here might be something like a dislike of doctors. I don’t like visiting the doctor, so I don’t do it unless I really have to. If I’ve got some mild illness, I’m going to look for something I can do about it that doesn’t involve visiting the doctor. “Natural” remedies are something I could get without visiting a doctor. More scientifically valid remedies might be available, but in many cases those would require me to visit the doctor, which I’m not going to do for a mild illness.
Personally, for a cold or flu, I like the natural remedy of cat therapy- I go lie down, and the cats curl up with me in the bed.
No, he doesn’t. You left out the last two sentences:
It isn’t really clear why he tells people to take vitamin C if that doesn’t work either. Perhaps because it is cheaper than Airborne but still provides all that placebo-ie goodness?
I take Emergen-C and vitamin pills when I’m sick, even though I’m not really sure they do much of anything. I consider myself to be intelligent and I believe that Airborne is similar to Emergen-C, so I may qualify for the OP.
My reasoning is:
I enjoy the effervescence of Emergen-C, especially when I have a sore throat (which I usually do in the first few days of having a cold). I could drink soda, but I try not to keep soda around the house because I’ll drink it and consume too many empty calories, and I can’t always get to the store when I get sick, while Emergen-C is shelf stable and not tasty enough for me to drink when I’m not sick.
I hope that there is truth to the fact that the vitamins within are beneficial to the immune system.
I take Emergen-C strictly for the placebo effect. If I can fool myself into not getting the flu this winter, I’m more than happy to drink some fizzy vitamin water. I’d assume Airborne is much the same.
I don’t think those are - they are just studies with the term ‘airborne’ in them. A lot of those studies are based on airbourne contaminates or toxins.
It says on the box that it’s good for you. People like to be proactive so they take it. Coco Krispies are advertising their alleged immunity-boosting properties on their box in big letters. Hey, it can’t hurt you! Unless eating nothing but refined sugar for breakfast qualifies as harmful.
Airborne is the new zinc pill to me. Zinc pills were all the rage a few years ago. People swore up and down to me that they worked. Now I seldom see zinc pills anymore. Something else will displace Airborne in few years.
Vitamin C has had the shit studied out of it and it does not prevent, cure or lessen the effects of colds and flu, but I am still told to take it all the time for that purpose. I have heard endlessly about the temperature causing colds. So much for germ theory.
You do realize that lack of scientific evidence to support a claim is not the same as scientific evidence that negates the claim. You get that right?
Because there has been extremely limited study, we actually don’t know much about what, if anything, airborne does.
One thing we do know is that recent research appears to show that antioxidants reduce the damage to the lungs caused by all types of flus. So, with the limited info we do have, airborne 1, Dripping 0. Assuming the research is correct, you could argue that it’s just dumb luck by the airborne people and you would probably be correct, but it doesn’t change the actual effectiveness (if there is some).
Note: I don’t buy airborne and I do understand your point, but I’m a big believer in not concluding something we don’t actually know, and our bodies are incredibly complex.
Stress compromises the immune system: cite from the Mayo clinic. I hypothesize that a lot of the old wife’s tales about avoiding colds (stay out of the rain, take vitamin C) operate via this mechanism. This would also explain why double blind tests fail to find significant effects for these treatments: anybody who volunteered for a 10 day vacation at the cold research centre was probably fairly mellow due to both temperament and situation. So the study protocol blunted the operating mechanism.
Popping any pill is reassuring. At least the side effects of vitamin C are relatively manageable.
Well, it’s obvious, in this case and many others. Being objectively ‘bright’ (as measured by IQ) and ‘well-educated’ (as measured by a college degree, I suppose) have little to do with reasoning skills and critical thinking ability.
I’m an otherwise well reasoned Whole Foods shopper of bulk items (while I laugh at all the lovely people buying Jason cosmetics, which have the same number of “synthetic toxins” that regular cosmetics do).
I tried Airborne at a boyfriend’s urging that it “really worked”. I made lots of fun of him, as I had a stash of zinc and vitamin C I’d pop whenever I felt a cold coming on - this is before it was fully in swing. This one time I tried airborne instead, and I’m not sure what it was about it - it certainly wasn’t the power of positive thinking, all the evidence points to it being a scam - but somehow it cleared up the sinuses quite a bit, to the tune of a lukewarm shower. Then, of course, I put more faith in it, and felt even better…
So is it any different? No. If it works or makes you feel better when you feel crappy, is it worth it? Depends on your view of money. Will I buy it if I feel a nasty cold coming on and feel a tad ashamed? Yes.
You are clearly misreading the article. There is no reason to assume that Vitamin C is included in the “perennial cold remedy.” And he cites studies saying it is effective.
In general, when you find something that “isn’t very clear” (i.e. you don’t understand why it is being said), it’s a good idea to try amending your assumptions.
OP: If this were left in GQ, there would be no answers. Have you not noticed that every answer to your original question is a guess?
There’s a reason the moderators are moderators. One of those is they know which forum is most likely to get answers.
Meta-analysis indicates that under average conditions, vitamin C is almost completely worthless at preventing or shortening the duration of colds. However when under prolonged physical or environmental stress it shows a significant preventative effect.
Before I actually bothered to research, I was planning on saying something like “lol you noobs everybody knows zinc rulez!” I’m surprised to post that the first meta-analysis I found suggests little efficacy in zinc supplementation. It’s worth mentioning that like with most nutrition related studies, one can easily find clinical trials to support whatever conclusion you’d like to make.
Just funny what confirmation bias can do. I used to sneer at Airborne buyers while sucking my zinc lozenges. Looks like they might have a point, after all.
ETA: I somehow missed the entire second page. I hope none of the links I have posted are redundant. Maybe I need some more ginko extract for my memory!