[perl4ever]

I think you are downplaying how mainstream homeopathy is. I believe CVS has carried homeopathic OTC products for years. And I don't get the impression it particularly bothers most people. If you think the "placebo effect" is a thing, then homeopathy is justified even if the only person who believes in it is the patient. Someone might see this as moral/intellectual rot and corruption, but that seems kind of like a fringe, wild-eyed/haired attitude.

[Nursie]

> If you think the "placebo effect" is a thing, then homeopathy is justified even if the only person who believes in it is the patient.

That depends really - some people are deterred from taking real medicine by homeopaths, and there have been a few high profile deaths where people had been persuaded that homeopathy was superior to, say, mainstream cancer treatments.

Further, even if you believe that homeopathy is somehow a 'useful' placebo, that doesn't justify any of the claims of efficacy that are made about it.

Unfortunately yes, it is quite mainstream and there are billion-dollar businesses making money from the gullible with this stuff.

[perl4ever]

Are you arguing in defense of placebos versus homeopathic medication? That is, there is a correct way to make and market "medications" that don't do anything, and a correct way to deceive patients, which is ethical and useful?

[DanBC]

Yes, isn't that obvious?

When companies get the dilution wrong people die. Here's an example of a company that got warned once, and then went on to get it wrong again, which killed at least 10 children and harmed hundreds more. This company spent years ignoring all the warnings.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/fda-homeopathic-teet...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hundreds-of-babie...

[Nursie]

Me? No I don't think that marketing placebos is honest or useful either, unless you market them directly as such* . I only really mention them in relation to what I was replying to.

(*in some cases the placebo effect appears even with a known placebo)

[perl4ever]

How do you determine a placebo is "known"? A basic pattern of thinking, when faced with contradictory information, is to assume some of it is false (whether or not you know specific reasons) and some of it is appropriate to rely on. People also rely on their sense of what everyone else is doing to figure out what to trust. So it's a false model if you assume that a disclosure means something is "known".

[Nursie]

I don't honestly care and I'm not really interested in dissecting the finer points of whether someone knows whether they're getting a placebo or not. You brought up placebos, you tell me what you think about them.

I'm in the homeopathy-is-a-load-of-horseshit camp, not the gives-two-shits-about-placebos camp.

[jerf]

"I believe CVS has carried homeopathic OTC products for years."

Read the labels of some of them. In some sort of bizarre double-fraud twist, there's actually some "homeopathic" products that contain meaningful levels of the active ingredients, and are basically labeled "homeopathic" the same way the words "organic" or "gluten free" get tossed about with wild abandon on products that it should be absolutely irrelevant for. (I have a picture somewhere in my family photo pile of water being labeled as "gluten-free".) It's like homeopathy, stripped of the idea that the more you dilute the better, or, homeopathy without the homeopathy.

[vorpalhex]

If homeopathy consisted of selling tubes of plain water with a label of "may help the common cold", I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

Instead recommending people to take crazy doses of supplements, making entirely crazy claims like "cures strep throat" or "can prevent infections" or generally pushing unregulated supplements is absolutely preying upon the weak, weakening the ability of medical providers to actually do their job and is nothing more than naked profiteering by private companies. Anybody supporting or pushing homeopathy is immoral.

[gruez]

>selling tubes of plain water with a label of "may help the common cold", I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

AFAIK they would also need the standard FDA disclaimer of

>This/these statement(s) have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

edit: apparently there's an exemption for homeopathic medicine, so they don't need it. That's a shame. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quack_Miranda_Warning#Homeopat...

[perl4ever]

I thought the products I've seen in mainstream stores have the disclaimer. But maybe I should look again.

[perl4ever]

The products in the drug store always say, I believe, something like "this has not been determined to cure or prevent any condition or disease by the FDA".

So that meets with your approval?

Obviously you can't say something is plain water whether or not it is - surely the placebo effect requires the recipient to think there is medication, and isn't it common knowledge that something like a bitter taste enhances it?

[vorpalhex]

This product may cure cancer.

* This has not been determined to cure or prevent any condition or disease by the FDA. Please note that Prop 65 of California law requires us to disclosure that this packaging may contain a known carcinogen. Long disclaimers are really hard for the average consumer to read and parse in any meaningful way and by using both small text and dense fonts manufacturers are able to make disclaimers extremely ineffective.

Legal does not imply ethical or moral.

[dobleboble]

You would probably appreciate the "CBD" market, with that attitude.

[vorpalhex]

There are issues with the CBD market both in bad claims about what CBD can/will do, and bad claims about the actual content of CBD product.

That's not a reflection on CBD itself.

Texas specifically is working on adding legal requirements around purity testing and what claims can be made. While there's a downside of cost I think that strategy is the most worthwhile.