A Win in the Fight Against Fake Medicine

Apreche

Let's keep up the good work. Get that fake medicine out of here. Of course, boo on the article for not being harsh enough. What is with that last line? Could work after all? My ass.

Rym

Man... If I had my way, the executives of that company (and that "lab") would be in jail and the product pulled off the shelves.

Apreche

Man... If I had my way, the executives of that company (and that "lab") would be in jail and the product pulled off the shelves.

We just need to get a law that lets the FDA regulate this shit, and also give them more moneys to get the job done.

Andrew

I believe legal action has been taken against the makers of the fake "penis enlargement" pill, Enzyte. Now we need to sue the pants off the makers of the Kinoki footpads.

Apreche

I believe legal action has been taken against the makers of the fake "penis enlargement" pill, Enzyte. Now we need to sue the pants off the makers of the Kinoki footpads.

Yes, we saw this advertisement in the hotel room at Katsucon. As far as I am concerned, these people are at the top of the worst offenders list of snake oil.

am_dragon

We just need to get a law that lets the FDA regulate this shit, and also give them more moneys to get the job done.

All of these products carry a warning that says "this is not proven to do what it says". We need more money in the education system, not the FDA. I don't want a nanny state telling me what I can and can not do, we have enough stupid laws now. Even the article you linked to has a study at the bottom that says Echinaciea may actually help fight colds. I don't think it cure colds, does but I doesn't change the fact that more laws are not going to fix it. Look at it another way, just because something is useless doesn't mean people won't buy it. Take ringtones for example, I would submit that the people selling ringtones do more harm than the people selling Airbourne. Ringtones are worthless, usually drm'ed to the phone and half the places that sell them cram some monthly fee on your bill. This is far more damaging than a $4 bottle of placebos. If you are sick and intelligent you go to the doctor.

I'm still bitter over the phynylpropanolamine ruling. Just because a few 90 year olds with high blood pressure stroke out when the took it doesn't mean that it should be off the market, those people should have known not to take it. Arguably the best decongestant with little side effects to healthy adults gone. It helped millions of people relive sinus pressure, and if you've had one of those headaches you know what that's like. The side effect was elevated blood pressure. Literally billions of doses were handed out per year, and a few old folks bite it and it's no longer an option for anyone.

Fuck it, I say take the warning labels off everything and the last one standing wins.

HungryJoe

Look at it another way, just because something is useless doesn't mean people won't buy it. Take ringtones for example, I would submit that the people selling ringtones do more harm than the people selling Airbourne. Ringtones are worthless, usually drm'ed to the phone and half the places that sell them cram some monthly fee on your bill. This is far more damaging than a $4 bottle of placebos.

The difference is that people know that a ringtone is superfluous. They don't necessarily know that this stupid product is not going to help them get well. Add to that the fact that the medicine bastards are trying their damndest to convince and persuade the sick people that their snake oil is going to help them, and you have a much greater harm than a ringtone. Legislation designed to take these people out of business is not an example of a "nanny-state", it's an example of the government protecting its citizens from unscrupulous asshat bastards, a legitimate government action. You didn't see these sort of shams nearly so often before this travesty was passed. It needs to be repealed and all this crap needs to be treated like drugs by the FDA.

Fuck it, I say take the warning labels off everything and the last one standing wins.

Yeah, lots of people say that to show how tough and cool they are. If you or any of your loved ones are ever hurt by a poorly made, poorly tested, or tainted product, I hope you take comfort in your libertarianism.

HMTKSteve

These "fake" remedies should have the "Not evaluated by the FDA" message in a large red font on the package. It should be the largest font on the packaging.

TheWhaleShark

We just need to get a law that lets the FDA regulate this shit, and also give them more moneys to get the job done.

All of these products carry a warning that says "this is not proven to do what it says". We need more money in the education system, not the FDA. I don't want a nanny state telling me what I can and can not do, we have enough stupid laws now. Even the article you linked to has a study at the bottom that says Echinaciea may actually help fight colds. I don't think it cure colds, does but I doesn't change the fact that more laws are not going to fix it. Look at it another way, just because something is useless doesn't mean people won't buy it. Take ringtones for example, I would submit that the people selling ringtones do more harm than the people selling Airbourne. Ringtones are worthless, usually drm'ed to the phone and half the places that sell them cram some monthly fee on your bill. This is far more damaging than a $4 bottle of placebos. If you are sick and intelligent you go to the doctor.

I'm still bitter over the phynylpropanolamine ruling. Just because a few 90 year olds with high blood pressure stroke out when the took it doesn't mean that it should be off the market, those people should have known not to take it. Arguably the best decongestant with little side effects to healthy adults gone. It helped millions of people relive sinus pressure, and if you've had one of those headaches you know what that's like. The side effect was elevated blood pressure. Literally billions of doses were handed out per year, and a few old folks bite it and it's no longer an option for anyone.

Fuck it, I say take the warning labels off everything and the last one standing wins.

Educating the consumer is the biggest roadblock to public health that exists. The problem, fundamentally, is that it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to fully inform the consumer of all the risks of all the products they may encounter. This is why we have doctors and the FDA. More and better education is needed, I will agree, but we ALSO need more money in public health protection agencies like the FDA so they can do a more complete job.

Apreche

Like am_dragon I too find that sometimes warning labels and such can be excessive. However, the solution is not to remove all restrictions on labeling from products. Least of all medicine.

Really think about it for a second. What if labels on medicine were not reliable? You could go to the store, think you are buying Tylenol, and find the package full of rat poison. A less extreme example would be to buy a liquid that tastes like Nyquil, but contains no acetaminophen. Active ingredients are the expensive part of medicine. If companies don't have to accurately label the drugs, they can leave the expensive ingredients out, and just lie and say they are in there. It gets even worse if you start to think about people with allergies or who have to worry about conflicts between different drugs they are taking.

Without trustworthy labeling of medicine, even the most informed of consumers is left to either not take any medicine, or take a huge risk on buying something from the drug store. You would basically be requiring everyone to study medicine and have their own chemistry labs where they synthesize their own medicines. This is counter-productive to the fundamental reason to have a society, to distribute labor. Doctors benefit from my knowledge of computers. I benefit from plumbers knowledge of plumbing. You benefit from mechanics knowledge of cars. This is how the world works. To remove regulation such as the FDA will actively prevent the society from benefiting from the knowledge we have spent so much to acquire.

Just because some warning labels are silly doesn't mean we should deregulate all labeling. Medicine, above all else, needs to have 100% reliable, complete, clear, and concise labeling.

HMTKSteve

On Paul Harvey today it was mentioned that in clinical tests patients felt better after having being given a placebo that they were told was a more expensive drug.

What also came up is that back when MSG was around lots of people complained that it caused health problems. MSG was then taken off the market. After tests proved no harmful effects from MSG it was put back on the market under a different name. No complaints about it since.

HungryJoe

On Paul Harvey today it was mentioned that in clinical tests patients felt better after having being given a placebo that they were told was a more expensive drug.

Well, I guess we can just throw way all medical progress, since placebos give the same results. I mean, the great medical expert Paul Harvey said so. Seriously, Paul Harvey? If he's even still alive (which I'm not sure I believe), he should die in a fire.

What also came up is that back when MSG was around lots of people complained that it caused health problems. MSG was then taken off the market. After tests proved no harmful effects from MSG it was put back on the market under a different name. No complaints about it since.

Then I guess we should just eat any crap restaurants see fit to put in our food, since Paul-fuckin'-Harvey the goddamned animated corpse says it's okay. You are so fucked up it's unbelievable.

Andrew

Well, I guess we can just throw way all medical progress, since placebos give the same results. I mean, the great medical expert Paul Harvey said so. Seriously,Paul Harvey? If he's even still alive (which I'm not sure I believe), he should die in a fire.

This says everything that needs to be known about Mr. Paul Harvey.

jcc

Life shouldn't be lived as a series of backlashes.

Fake medicines are annoying. However, too strict legislation could cause some legitimate remedies to fall through the cracks, and add an extra layer of bureaucracy in the efforts of legitimate health care providers to create innovative cures for difficult diseases.

Educational reform is at the root of everything, as usual.

HungryJoe

However, too strict legislation could cause some legitimate remedies to fall through the cracks. . .

Name one.

jcc

Name one what?

Apreche

Name one what?

Name an example of a strict legislation blocking a legitimate remedy.

HMTKSteve

On Paul Harvey today it was mentioned that in clinical tests patients felt better after having being given a placebo that they were told was a more expensive drug.

Well, I guess we can just throw way all medical progress, since placebos give the same results. I mean, the great medical expert Paul Harvey said so. Seriously,Paul Harvey? If he's even still alive (which I'm not sure I believe), he should die in a fire.

What also came up is that back when MSG was around lots of people complained that it caused health problems. MSG was then taken off the market. After tests proved no harmful effects from MSG it was put back on the market under a different name. No complaints about it since.

Then I guess we should just eat any crap restaurants see fit to put in our food, since Paul-fuckin'-Harvey the goddamned animated corpse says it's okay. You are so fucked up it's unbelievable.

No, the point is that for some reason many people believe a drug is working if it costs them more money. By the same token many people will also believe something is really bad for them if they are told it is.

Case A we had people being told they were getting a very expensive drug and they felt they were getting results.
Case B we had people being told that a substance was very bad for them and they believed it.

In both cases they were getting something that had no effect on them.

HMTKSteve

Name one what?

Name an example of a strict legislation blocking a legitimate remedy.

Prostitution. Sometimes a little bit of action is all you need to feel better.

Li_Akahi

Name one what?

Name an example of a strict legislation blocking a legitimate remedy.

Stem cell research.

Apreche

Name one what?

Name an example of a strict legislation blocking a legitimate remedy.

Stem cell research.

That's not blocking a remedy. That's blocking funding for a specific kind of research. Huge difference.

HungryJoe

Name one what?

Name an example of a strict legislation blocking a legitimate remedy.

Stem cell research.

That's not blocking a remedy. That's blocking funding for a specific kind of research. Huge difference.

Another problem is that the objection to stem cell research was the religious/moral issue, not whether it was fake. Look at what Mr. jcc wrote:

Fake medicines are annoying. However, too strict legislation could cause some legitimate remedies to fall through the cracks, and add an extra layer of bureaucracy in the efforts of legitimate health care providers to create innovative cures for difficult diseases.

I'm asking for an example of a legitimate remedy that would be defeated by legislation designed to defeat fake remedies.

jcc

That would involve traveling into a hypothetical future in which stricter legislation were enacted. Note the use of "could".

HungryJoe

That would involve traveling into a hypothetical future in which stricter legislation were enacted. Note the use of "could".

Then you just have a vague sense of unease rather than an actual objection. Use of the word "could" doesn't let you off the hook. Argue it, keeping in mind that the legislation will be subject to judicial review.

Apreche

Then you just have a vague sense of unease rather than an actual objection. Use of the word "could" doesn't let you off the hook. Argue it, keeping in mind that the legislation will be subject to judicial review.

Also keep in mind that the legislation will most likely not specifically say which remedies are allowed and which are not. The legislation will likely just grant increased funding and power to the FDA, a regulatory agency. The scientists and doctors at the FDA will be deciding based on strict scientific criteria the specifics of what is approved, and what can be printed on which labels. Of course, there is potential for corruption of FDA regulators, but that's again, a separate issue.

jcc

Well, consider hypnotherapy. Hypnotherapy is a useful treatment that was born out of quackery. If it had been made illegal way back when due to concerns for the public, who knows if further investigation into the subject would have been taken? The same could probably also be said for chiropractic adjustment and acupuncture.

Omnutia

Could someone tell me what the last two kanji in Kinoki were? I get curious when I see this kind of thing.
Well, one down and how many to go?

am_dragon

The last statement in my previous post was mostly sardonic. Even medicine I take daily would be useless because the side effects would be unknown. I honestly do not think more legislation is the answer.

Name an example of a strict legislation blocking a legitimate remedy.

I already did, Phenylpropanolamine, it was the primary active ingredient in Alka-Seltzer Cold medicine. I'm also going to say ephedrine. Taken as intended it does have positive properties. Abuse banned it in most states, even though pseudoephedrine has killed thousands as the primary ingredient in meth it is still widely available and easy to get.

Kilarney

I don't want a nanny state telling me what I can and can not do

I agree that a nanny state should not tell an informed citizen what they can and can not do. This is about prohibiting companies from lying to you about what a product can do. To me, there is a big difference - unless you have an independent medical research facility in your basement.

I mean, the great medical expert Paul Harvey said so.

I suspect that I'm the only person on these forums who has actually made it onto the Paul Harvey show. I wasn't on the show personally, but a news story about me was. As such, I'm offended that at the attack on his credibility! ;-)

Well, consider hypnotherapy. Hypnotherapy is a useful treatment that was born out of quackery.

Uh oh. Did you just hear his credibility being sucked out of the air? The medical evidence is at best poor and inconsistent. You are also comparing apples to oranges. Hypnotherapy is not a drug or something that is ingested. Therefore, it has not undergone pharmacological tests and been rejected. So your example has no bearing whatsoever on this debate.

The same could probably also be said for chiropractic adjustment and acupuncture.

Same problem. Just listen to a few episodes of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe to see how bad the data is in the handful of studies that suggest these forms of treatment provide any benefit. Also, you once again cite something that is not a drug nor ingested.

Apreche

Well, consider hypnotherapy. Hypnotherapy is a useful treatment that was born out of quackery. If it had been made illegal way back when due to concerns for the public, who knows if further investigation into the subject would have been taken? The same could probably also be said for chiropractic adjustment and acupuncture.

Um, those are all quackeries, so yes, they would be blocked.

Rym

Well, consider hypnotherapy. Hypnotherapy is a useful treatment that was born out of quackery.

Fixed it. You can try to debate that point if you wish, but be sure you've actually read whatever "evidence" you plan to put forth or you'll just make yourself look silly.

The same could probably also be said for chiropractic adjustment and acupuncture.

Shame on you. You should know better, especially if you post here. Chiropractic is absolute horseshit. It is a sham treatment of the worst kind, and I honestly feel that its practitioners should be prosecuted and its clinics forcibly closed. Acupuncture is little better, have no more effect than a placebo and no legitimate medical use. Even hinting that either of these treatments is in any way effective or has led to any legitimate medical advancement is laughable.

even thoughpseudoephedrine has killed thousands as the primary ingredient in meth it is still widely available and easy to get.

Pseudoephedrine is one of the safest, most effective, and most quickly acting decongestants in the world, and certainly should not be banned. I note that the current regulations on the drug are short-sighted, ineffective, and NOT the result of the FDA or any other regulatory agency. Congress, after an extensive lobbying effort from a rival drug manufacturer, enacted the legislation. If the FDA had had its way, pseudoephedrine would still be widely available, as well it should be.

Medical regulation should be undertaken by medical professionals. Fake medicine should be denounced with all the harshness and means available to said professionals, and legislation should be put in place to back them (not to supercede them).

So again, this was a victory, but I wish the perpetrators had been prosecuted directly for fraud and the company dismantled.