I am confused : I keep seeing ads for this stuff:Oscillococcinum: Homeopathic Medicine for Flu Symptoms
According to the website, they claim that this crap reduces the severity of the flu-but-it contains no ingredients proven to do anything.
So, how do they advertise this stuff?
Suppose I were to compount some crap in my basement-let us call it “Ralphecocillium”-and make claims like this-would this be legal?
The outfit that make the stuff (Boiron)-have they ever been sued?
If you disagree, show your own clinical testing to the FTC.
Here’s the FDA requirements for marketing homeopathic drugs.
The FDA does not require clinical trials for marketing homeopathic remedies, just that they be listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. There have been clinical trials, but the manufacturer has chosen to cherry pick studies showing just the positive effects. Other studies have shown no effects beyond placebo, which is to be expected since there is little chance that more than a few molecules of the “active ingredient” remain in a bottle.
There is, however, a special place in hell reserved for these people.
Here is a good
The free market will correct any problems.
Take a good look at that quote sh1bu1 linked to. The “product” is so tremendously diluted, one can say with assurance that not a single molecule of “active ingredient” remains in it. By purchasing Oscillococcinum, you’re paying a heavy premium for plain old water*.
What limited research has been done (by people who evidently have a lot of time on their hands) does not fill one with confidence: From a comprehensive review in the Cochrane database:
“Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.”
The review notes that according to the scant low quality evidence available, supposed cases of flu were shortened by Oscillococcinum (compared to placebo) by 0.28 days.
Like, wow. :rolleyes:
It’d be nifty if you could buy over the counter supplements to prevent and/or treat influenza. As things stand now, you’re wasting your money.
Including an overly heavy wallet.
*I enjoyed a question on another forum about whether Oscillococcinum was quackery. Of course it is - it’s made from a freaking duck! The manufacturers evidently have a sense of humor.
This should be required reading for marketing departments (so they can copy it), and skeptical thinkers (so they can detect it). Notes:
Four separate trials, only two published. This should raise red flags right there, and makes it easy for the rest of the deception. What were the results of the published trials, ignoring the unpublished ones? Did the peer review of the published results agree with the statements made by the authors, and do those statements agree with those of the company?
1250 patients in all trials: OK, how many were in the published trials? How many were in each trial? How many were in the “most recent study?” How many were in the studies that showed an effect vs. the ones that didn’t? This is called “hiding in the average,” and it’s astoundingly deceptive.
“In general, these studies show…” In general, the temperature is a little over three degrees Kelvin. Let’s hear the words “statistically significant” and “reproducable” a little, can we? And even for weasel words™, “In general” is pretty weak.
The “most recent” study shows a 14% better effectiveness. In the best light, that’s a significant effect. But: if there are only 15-20 people in the study, it’s not. Was this study one of the published ones? Was it blinded (if not, it’s definitely worthless given the clearly objective measures)? How do you explain the effect, given that there’s no accepted mechanism by which your drug could have been present?* How long did it take the people on the placebo to get better, on average? 49 hours? 110 hours?
*This one’s debatable; there’s an ongoing discussion in the scientific community about whether an explainable mechanism is a requirement for a good hypothesis. But in this case, where the concensus scientific theory is that there’s a fully-understood mechanism making it impossible for the drug to be effective, I think it’s valid.
Here’s an account of the history of Airborne, and its various legal problems stemming from its advertising.
TimeWinder - great breakdown. I’ll admit that I was fooled by it. My initial thought was “man, they must have really gotten lucky in trial and caught lightning in a bottle.” When in fact, all they did was take a bottle out during a lightning storm, hold it up to the sky and take a picture of lightning *through *that bottle. Very deceptive.
Very.
Poor Ralph. Even when he’s right he’s wrong. There are ten bazillion quack remedies on the net that he could have asked about and he had to find the one that can post actual clinical studies.
My opinion, of course, is that homeopathy is pure and utter quackery. But like Scientology it’s incredibly well-funded quackery and their lawyers can find the loopholes in the laws of every country and enlarge then into Holland Tunnels.
A good question would have asked about the “quantum” cures. Those are hilarious. And the answer to why they’re still up is that the FDA has been deliberately underfunded, can barely handle the few big cases it faces, and requires ten years to go through the paperwork for a minor internet offender. By that time, the site has changed names and claims a dozen times.
But no. The question had to be something that could be answered by properly reading the actual website.
There’s a lesson here.
I saw this crap at the local Walgreens…$16.99 for 100 pills!
Pretty good for milk sugar and a jillionth part of a duck liver.
Too bad the Feds don’t require the TV ad to state “this product is not intended to diagnose or treat any disease”-that would be fair.
No, it would NOT be fair. I HATE that disclaimer! It damn well IS intended to treat a disease! What the hell else are they advertising it for?
The same reason that Enzyte is still being sold, even after the original founders were jailed and fined for mail fraud regarding it. Their company was sold to another, who continues to market the stuff. Geez!
I made and sold homeopathic remedies on eBay for a while. I was rare in that I was registered with the FDA as a drug manufacturer, repackager and seller. The FDA even sent someone to inspect my facility (which was my kitchen).
The rules were vague about H remedies and I understood that as long as I made non specific claims about my remedies effectiveness, I was free to make any claims that I desired such as “may help with symptoms of cold and flu”, and “for the releasing of fear and attachments”.
I tried to sell at low, low prices on eBay but found they sold a little better when I raised the prices. I never did sell enough to make any real money, though, and I quit because it was just a hassle.
I don’t believe H remedies are effective in any way and most of my family members are in agreement. The ones who don’t believe in H remedies were mad at me for selling crap and the ones who did believe in them were mad at me for selling product I didn’t believe in. One told me that me that homeopathy was faith based medicine and that my remedies wouldn’t work because I didn’t have faith in them when I made them.
At first I was just going to sell tap water with a little alcohol as preservative. Using Hanneman’s theory of ‘like cures like’, I figured the water in my tap has been on Earth for a couple billion years and has probably been exposed at some point to every ailment felt by man and that that would be enough to make it effective for anything. But DH convinced me to actually make the products to meet ethical standards. LOL!
I only ever took one class on statistics, but something tells me that if you test Placebo 1 and Placebo 2 in two cases P1 should do better and in two cases P2 should do better. Hmmm . . . which two should I publish to “prove” P2 works . . .?
I also think it would be fun to sell urine in a bottle. All you have to do is use weasel words. You can do amazing things with the words “can,” “may,” and “could.” Don’t forget that urine is all natural.