PDA

View Full Version : Not so homeopathic product labeled "homeopathic"?



Peptron
2005-Aug-09, 02:49 PM
I've noticed that back home I got a toothpaste tube that have a label "the best of homeopathy~" on the side of it. I've read the ingredients of it, and they seemed quite similar to those of a Crest tube I got. They both use sodium fluoride (which is the key ingredient in toothpaste), and pretty much all the other ingredients are more or less the same.

Wouldnt the homeopathic toothpaste use only a molecule of sodium fluoride, drop it somewhere in the ocean, shake that ocean and go get water somewhere else and put that into the toothpaste for it to be really labeled "homeopathic"? If not, what's the point of putting a label "homeopathic" on a product that doesnt really seem to be homeopathic at all (like this toothpaste that use sodium fluoride)?

I've noticed too that a lot of other product are labeled "homeopathic", but that seem to have all the "regular" ingredients, making them not so homeopathic. Why would somebody put a "homeopathic" label on something that works? Wouldnt that just hurt their credibility?

pumpkinpie
2005-Aug-09, 03:12 PM
Hmmm....I checked the definition of "homeopathic."

homeopathies: A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself.

I admit I'm not very well educated in homeopathy. But applying this definition to toothpaste, I would think that they put a tiny amount in of whatever it is that would cause gum disease, gingivitis, plaque, tarter, cavities, etc. Is that what's really in homeopathic toothpaste? Is that logical thinking on my part? Feel free to correct my ignorance.

Glom
2005-Aug-09, 04:42 PM
Did you check the price? It's probably just an excuse to slap another couple of quid on.

tracer
2005-Aug-09, 05:24 PM
I am shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- to hear that something labelled as having unscientific nonsense non-ingredients does not actually contain unscientific nonsense non-ingredients. I suggest you write a sternly-worded letter to the toothpaste manufacturer, and to Health Canada, telling them that you demand the complete and utter lack of useful ingredients that you paid for!

Donnie B.
2005-Aug-09, 07:16 PM
Hmmm....I checked the definition of "homeopathic."

homeopathies: A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself.

I admit I'm not very well educated in homeopathy. But applying this definition to toothpaste, I would think that they put a tiny amount in of whatever it is that would cause gum disease, gingivitis, plaque, tarter, cavities, etc. Is that what's really in homeopathic toothpaste? Is that logical thinking on my part? Feel free to correct my ignorance.
Problem is, it's hard to include minute quantities of not-brushing-your-teeth and never-flossing in a toothpaste formula. :P

Paul Beardsley
2005-Aug-09, 08:21 PM
This thread is fascinating (and not a little amusing).

Thinking about it, one way of losing your teeth would be to get into a fight and be kicked in the mouth. So perhaps, if you had a really minor disagreement with someone, and they booted you really, really gently in the mouth on a regular basis, then you could join Fight Club and still keep your ivories intact.

kylenano
2005-Aug-09, 08:46 PM
It's not that the toothpaste itself is homeopathic, but it's supposed to be compatible with homeopathic remedies.

See: Natural Homeopathic-Style Toothpaste (http://www.mothernature.com/shop/detail.cfm/sku/53779/S/98686) which seems (I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly) to imply that strong flavours such as mint or camphor might interfere with homeopathic remedies. :o

Eoanthropus Dawsoni
2005-Aug-09, 09:06 PM
This thread is fascinating (and not a little amusing).

Thinking about it, one way of losing your teeth would be to get into a fight and be kicked in the mouth. So perhaps, if you had a really minor disagreement with someone, and they booted you really, really gently in the mouth on a regular basis, then you could join Fight Club and still keep your ivories intact.

Only if you fought under a pyramid and wore a magnetic bracelet.

PatKelley
2005-Aug-09, 09:22 PM
By the same logic all those with smoking-induced lung cancer should just cut down rather than quit...

Or drink water that has had a single butt smashed out in about 1000 gallons...

gethen
2005-Aug-09, 09:57 PM
Ugh! When you think about it, to be truly homeopathic, that toothpaste must contain minute amounts of the bacteria that cause cavities. Where do you think they got the original stuff?

sarongsong
2005-Aug-10, 04:24 PM
...They both use sodium fluoride (which is the key ingredient in toothpaste)...???

Peptron
2005-Aug-10, 04:57 PM
...They both use sodium fluoride (which is the key ingredient in toothpaste)...???

Ok, maybe the "key ingredient" thing is misleading (since it's really far at the bottom of the list of ingredients since it's in quite low concentration, but not to "homeopathic scales"). But usually, toothpaste containing sodium fluoride is a good sign, since it's quite effective in preventing cavities, which is one of the reason why people use toothpaste at all.

I would have expected an homeopathic medicine to not have any "working" ingredient, since it is not how homeopathy is supposed to work...

danilom
2006-Feb-13, 11:49 PM
Oh my you really don't know much about homeopathy?
the toothpaste is great... yes it has almost all the ingredients as a normal toothpaste , but those collors and aromas etc are not in it. and it has been prepared not with the bacteria or plague but with the elemnts that help youre teeth like mangan its also found in Orbit cheewing gums, but here it has been added as it is done in homeopathy, by mixing it with water which remembers its attributes (of the lement you mix with). Well long story short thats the basic of it. Find more on homeopathic websites.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-14, 12:05 AM
No, homeopathy has very minute quantities of active ingredients. This toothpaste did not. It isn't a homeopathic preparation. Which is good. Homeopathy doesn't work. The premise that water can "remember" anything is just silly.

danilom
2006-Feb-14, 10:23 AM
Well you can think whatever you like but I have been using homeopathic remedies for more than 3 years and I must say that in my case they work. I used to have bad headaches every day and in time they passed, the thing is that the most important thing is to go to someone who really knows to treat you with homeopathy, to choose the right remedies. And it is also important that this person is an excellent psychiatrist, becouse the illnes is 90% state of the mind, the aura mumbo jumbo... so he must take youre profile in couple of interviews and then find a remedy for you.
Yes toothpastes are just without harmfull ingredients which could decrease the strenght of the treatment but also some have homeopathic information.

Van Rijn
2006-Feb-14, 10:36 AM
Well you can think whatever you like but I have been using homeopathic remedies for more than 3 years and I must say that in my case they work. I used to have bad headaches every day and in time they passed, the thing is that the most important thing is to go to someone who really knows to treat you with homeopathy, to choose the right remedies. And it is also important that this person is an excellent psychiatrist, becouse the illnes is 90% state of the mind, the aura mumbo jumbo... so he must take youre profile in couple of interviews and then find a remedy for you.
Yes toothpastes are just without harmfull ingredients which could decrease the strenght of the treatment but also some have homeopathic information.

That sounds like the definition of placebo (http://www.answers.com/topic/placebo?method=6). It is quite possible a person was able to help you pyschologically, but your anecdote actually argues against any effect of the supposed homeopathic remedy.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-14, 02:00 PM
Ignoring for the moment that homeopathy has never been proven in any test or trial to be effective; a good sign of a scam is when the only folks trying to convince you it works are the ones selling it.

Hear about the homeeopathic patient that forgot to take their medicine?

Died of an overdose.

As far as visiting homeopathic websites - that would be like visiting Nancy L's website to get the straight scoop on Planet X.

JohnW
2006-Feb-14, 04:14 PM
And it is also important that this person is an excellent psychiatrist
I agree. Homeopathy believers should see a psychiatrist.

teri tait
2006-Feb-14, 04:32 PM
Maybe the bacteria either chooses to hang onto teeth or the teeth beg it to remember them? Cavitied are very difficult to build into some teeth, ones that require a dental artist with some experience with drilling, and a dog to teach him how.

danilom
2006-Feb-14, 05:16 PM
HA HA HA did you ever heard that people do that for NO CHARGE? They do here in Serbia And Montenegro.
And that placebo thing... let's see if you happent to get some illnes... any it doesen't matter , and someone says : here, take this drop of water, it will make you better. And you take it and get well, will you say : what a crap it's placebo! or you will say : than you I got cured. In any way the homeopathic remedies cant hurt you, if it can cure you what seems to be the problem?
You want to drink trodons to ease the pains? Be my guest...

THE END by me

aurora
2006-Feb-14, 05:22 PM
In any way the homeopathic remedies cant hurt you, if it can cure you what seems to be the problem?


You should study about experiments, and learn why drug tests need to be double blind and have random assignment.

You could probably learn this in a 100 level statistics class, or by reading a chapter on experiments in a statistics book.

Anyway, once you understand how experiments are conducted, and why they are conducted that way, then you will understand what it means when someone tells you that homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-14, 05:26 PM
HA HA HA did you ever heard that people do that for NO CHARGE? They do here in Serbia And Montenegro.
And that placebo thing... let's see if you happent to get some illnes... any it doesen't matter , and someone says : here, take this drop of water, it will make you better. And you take it and get well, will you say : what a crap it's placebo! or you will say : than you I got cured. In any way the homeopathic remedies cant hurt you, if it can cure you what seems to be the problem?
You want to drink trodons to ease the pains? Be my guest...

THE END by me

I got cornered at a cocktail party by a Chiropractor and endured a 30 minute spiel on the "lifeforce." No charge for that either, . . . other than wasting 30 minutes because I was too gracious to walk away.

teri tait
2006-Feb-14, 05:37 PM
Sort of a tailblocker

Swift
2006-Feb-14, 08:05 PM
<snip>
You want to drink trodons to ease the pains? Be my guest...

Trodons? :confused:

Van Rijn
2006-Feb-14, 08:46 PM
HA HA HA did you ever heard that people do that for NO CHARGE? They do here in Serbia And Montenegro.


So I assume that means that they don't sell the so-called remedies and don't get a kick back from the people that do?



And that placebo thing... let's see if you happent to get some illnes... any it doesen't matter , and someone says : here, take this drop of water, it will make you better. And you take it and get well, will you say : what a crap it's placebo! or you will say : than you I got cured.


I would say that most likely I got cured on my own. With most diseases, there is a good sized percentage of people that get better without help. This, along with psychological bias, is always taken into consideration in real drug tests. Your comments indicate exactly why we need careful double blind tests for proper research - you are clearly biased and can't look at this issue objectively.

Here's a reference on double blind research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind_study



In any way the homeopathic remedies cant hurt you, if it can cure you what seems to be the problem?


"...if it can cure you..."? Please point to a double blind study that shows homeopathic remedies can cure anything. Failing that, you have not demonstrated they are of any use. And, aside from being a waste of money, if this stuff keeps you from getting proper medical attention it can kill you.

Some of my ancestors were involved with the early development of the Christian Science church. One of them died from food poisoning because they refused to go to the doctor. That's what this sort of thing can do.

teri tait
2006-Feb-15, 06:16 AM
Medicine is only effective if the patient puts stock in the medicnes effectiveness and the quality of the prescribing physician. You wouldn't go to a rocket scientist for a cure to end world hunger and suffering.

Gillianren
2006-Feb-15, 06:58 AM
Medicine is only effective if the patient puts stock in the medicnes effectiveness and the quality of the prescribing physician. You wouldn't go to a rocket scientist for a cure to end world hunger and suffering.

Maybe, maybe not. But I would much rather go to someone who has had years of training in the field of medicine than someone who hasn't had any, as in the case of the woman whose kid I used to babysit. The woman was always trying to talk to me about homeopathy, and she sure hadn't ever studied medicine.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-15, 07:12 AM
Medicine is only effective if the patient puts stock in the medicine's effectiveness and the quality of the prescribing physician.
Then how come I can secretly slip my cat antibiotics and cure him? :think:

Van Rijn
2006-Feb-15, 11:30 AM
Medicine is only effective if the patient puts stock in the medicnes effectiveness and the quality of the prescribing physician.

Why then does real medicine work on infants, the unconscious and animals?

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-15, 02:05 PM
Then how come I can secretly slip my cat antibiotics and cure him? :think:

Because cats are not nuerotic.

Well, . . . not in the same way people are.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-15, 02:08 PM
Why then does real medicine work on infants, the unconscious and animals?

Because infants and the unconscious are not neurotic.

Well, . . . at least not in the same way as adults and the conscious are.

mid
2006-Feb-15, 02:08 PM
Ignoring for the moment that homeopathy has never been proven in any test or trial to be effective

How would you test this, anyway? In order to perform a proper double-blind test you need to find a placebo to act as a control group, surely?

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-15, 02:20 PM
How would you test this, anyway? In order to perform a proper double-blind test you need to find a placebo to act as a control group, surely?

Are you asking how to test the effectiveness of nothing versus the effectiveness of nothing else?

mid
2006-Feb-15, 03:31 PM
Or more precisely, how you ensure your results aren't ruined by tiny, miniscule contaminants of the "active" homeopathy ingredient coming in contact with your placebo by being anywhere near them at some point in the last 20 years.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-15, 03:42 PM
Or more precisely, how you ensure your results aren't ruined by tiny, miniscule contaminants of the "active" homeopathy ingredient coming in contact with your placebo by being anywhere near them at some point in the last 20 years.

I guess you have to rely on the due diligence of the professionals performing the experiment. A good reason for the RESULTS MAY VARY or DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME disclaimers? But seriously, it is an interesting point that reducing the possibility of contamination actually plays into the claims of homeopathy.

As part of the less is more approach, might they say that the better job of insuring against contamination, the more likely contamination of significance will occur?

It's that kind of goofy paradox that highlights the wierdness of homeopathy. Not that wierd automatically proves it ineffective; but with the lack of even a single properly conducted experiment to show it is effective, it seals the arguement.

mid
2006-Feb-15, 04:38 PM
True. It just that it suddenly occurred to me that, were I an unscrupulous promoter of homeopathic quackery, I could relatively easily discount the null outcome of any study simply by claiming that minute traces of the stuff had got into the placebo by being in the same room (or whatever), and so that's why it seemed to be just as effective as the "real" one.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-15, 05:16 PM
True. It just that it suddenly occurred to me that, were I an unscrupulous promoter of homeopathic quackery, I could relatively easily discount the null outcome of any study simply by claiming that minute traces of the stuff had got into the placebo by being in the same room (or whatever), and so that's why it seemed to be just as effective as the "real" one.

My solution to that would be to make sure the various proposed remedies (including the placebo) were prepared and administered at different sites.

However, if the point you are making is taken to it's extreme, there is no way to argue against it. A proponent of homeopathy could always argue that minute traces of the homeopathic remedy SOMEHOW got in the placebo; or that some other ingredient with homeopathic potential SOMEHOW got into all the materials of an experiment, . . . and so on and so forth.

Especially if the "memory" thing mentioned earlier in the thread were called into play. It becomes a matter of proving something didn't happen, even though by definition it leaves no evidence as to whether it happened or not even when it does happen.

I think that was a convoluted way of saying something someone else already said.

John Dlugosz
2006-Feb-15, 09:37 PM
The null effect due to "contamination" is at least an argument against buying the things. You buy other stuff that's in the same store, right?

HenrikOlsen
2006-Feb-20, 08:49 PM
Simplest test:

Do the double blind test with a placebo, a homeopathetic "medicine", and a previously shown to work medicine.
Compare the results of the three.

aurora
2006-Feb-20, 11:15 PM
Simplest test:

Do the double blind test with a placebo, a homeopathetic "medicine", and a previously shown to work medicine.
Compare the results of the three.

That won't quite work with humans, because it is unethical to withhold treatment. So if there is a previously proven beneficial treatment that works for whatever condition you are testing, then you can't withhold it just to test the placebo.

mickal555
2006-Feb-22, 12:54 PM
What about something like a headace or motion sickness..?

farmerjumperdon
2006-Feb-22, 01:27 PM
That won't quite work with humans, because it is unethical to withhold treatment. So if there is a previously proven beneficial treatment that works for whatever condition you are testing, then you can't withhold it just to test the placebo.

Are you saying research using a placebo is not used, or that it is unethical when it is used? I was under the impression that testing against a placebo is standard procedure.

mid
2006-Feb-22, 02:31 PM
I think what he's suggesting is that it's unethical to perform double-blind testing on such a flimsy thing as homeopathy, when you've already got a perfectly good, well tested product that works.

aurora
2006-Feb-22, 06:46 PM
Are you saying research using a placebo is not used, or that it is unethical when it is used? I was under the impression that testing against a placebo is standard procedure.

Not exactly, go back and read the post I was responding to.

Testing a new treatment against a placebo is commonly done.

But if we wanted to test a new treatment for, say, tuberculosis, it would be unethical to use a placebo because we have treatments that have already proven effective against tuberculosis (ignoring new strains that are resistent to antibiotics).

So you can't randomly assign a human with tuberculosis to a group where they might only receive a placebo and no other treatment for their disease. Even if you pay them money and they are homeless. :hand:

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-22, 06:49 PM
But you can test a new drug against a previously proven one to see if it works better.

aurora
2006-Feb-22, 07:07 PM
But you can test a new drug against a previously proven one to see if it works better.

I think so, of course by the time it is ready for human trials it has already gone through a number of steps.

You can also test combinations of drugs.

But the post I was responding to suggested a test with 3 subject groups:

1. Placebo
2. Homeopathic
3. Known effective existing treatment

My point was that if it was a serious (someone else asked about headache, I imagine that kind of thing would be an exception, anyone know?) condition, and there was at least one known effective treatment for that condition, you couldn't assign people to groups 1 or 2 unless they were receiving some other treatment for their condition. That would be withholding treatment.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-22, 08:07 PM
Sure. I wasn't disagreeing, just providing more information.