…and this is a 
It's called Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal gel. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a thing for colds…all it can do is destroy your sense of smell. It wasn't caught before it was put on the market, because, get this:
The FDA said Zicam Cold Remedy was never formally approved because it is part of a small group of remedies that are not required to undergo federal review before launching. Known as homeopathic products, the formulations often contain herbs, minerals and flowers.
Minerals. Like lots of zinc, which can cause nerve damage.
Comments
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 16, 2009 8:30 PM
Yeah. Homeopathic products need not be regulated so strictly according to the FDA.
Cheerios, on the other hand . . . .
Posted by: minimalist | June 16, 2009 8:31 PM
But... if it's homeopathic, shouldn't it have... like, one molecule of zinc per bottle, at most?
Well, that's the problem with woo's complete lack of standards, I guess.
Posted by: Ticker | June 16, 2009 8:32 PM
Nothing short of poison, some of those herbals. Especially the ayurvedic stuff, which can contain lovely stuff like arsenic, lead and the like.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 16, 2009 8:33 PM
See, homeopathy doesn't stink after all!
Posted by: James F | June 16, 2009 8:33 PM
But it's got
electrolyteszinc, whatplantsour bodies crave!Posted by: Becca Stareyes | June 16, 2009 8:35 PM
If it contains that much zinc, the meaning of 'homeopathy' must have diluted over the years.
Posted by: Otto | June 16, 2009 8:37 PM
Just heard it on the news.
Well, colds do bad things to the ability to smell, so it seems to help the cold to work better.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 16, 2009 8:40 PM
It could be a homeopathic preparation that actually contains something. It could be a low dilution, such as 6X or even 1x, which leaves plenty of stuff in it.
Or, it could contain homeopathic levels of zinc, but contain "non-medicinal ingredients" other than the zinc and filler...which could very well contain real drugs and/or actual active components.
I wouldn't put it past a homeopath to make "homeopathic zinc pills" which are 99% lactose, absolutely no zinc, but contain 1% methamphetamine to "help the lactose stick together".
And since it's homeopathic, they're never asked to prove that their pills ever contain what they say they do.
Posted by: Greg F. | June 16, 2009 8:44 PM
Under a law adapted in the 1990s, a lot of products like multivitamins, supplements and herbal remedies were allowed to skip the FDA approval process because they would be classified as food rather than drugs. So Zicam was probably regulated the same way as a slice of bread from the government's standpoint.
Oddly enough, I've heard about how Zicam is a great remedy from several people as is to confirm this study...
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/05/07/why-alternative-medicine-spreads-like-a-virus/
... which shows that medicines that don't actually help you are more popular than ones that do since people stay sick longer and demonstrate the non-drug to more victims, err, potential users.
Posted by: Brian | June 16, 2009 8:45 PM
Actually, this is a classically homeopathic remedy. The astronomical dilution was a relatively late idea added to homeopathy. The more central tenet is "like cures like". To stop a cold (which stuffs up your nose, thus destroying your sense of smell), find something that destroys a healthy person's sense of smell.
Zinc up your nose: just what the homeopath ordered.
Posted by: Felix | June 16, 2009 8:47 PM
Do I understand correctly? Because most of the time, most of the ingredients in a group of products which get a certain term slapped onto them by their producers are harmless and/or ineffective, there's no need to test them at all?
So, I could have made a nice little concoction of datura, fly agaric and death cap, called it homeopathic and sold it to the public? And they wouldn't have cared before about few hundred people died?
How... medieval.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 16, 2009 8:50 PM
hmmm.... i wonder if that's why I have no sense of smell... German doctors are deep into woo, so for all i know one of them might have suggested somesuch crap to my mom for my nasal congestions or something
*ponder*
Posted by: Dave W. | June 16, 2009 8:51 PM
If I remember correctly, the 1934 Food and Drug Act was amended by a homeopath Congressman (in 1934) to say, basically, that everything in the homeopathic Materia Medica is an approved drug, period.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 16, 2009 8:51 PM
I zinc that homeopathy is ridiculous.
Posted by: Felix | June 16, 2009 8:57 PM
One detail seems to be wrong in the article:
"The global market for homeopathic drugs is about $200 million per year, according to the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists."
and
"Matrixx said it will consider withdrawing the products, which accounted for about 40 percent of its $111.6 million in sales last year."
Can it be accurate that a single product line from a single company makes up more than half of the worldwide market? Coke has a similar market share in Germany (just the first thing I looked at for comparison), but they are comparing only to other cola products, not to the entire lemonade or soft drinks market.
Posted by: theinquisitor | June 16, 2009 9:08 PM
I smell a rat, or at least I used to.
Posted by: Paul | June 16, 2009 9:09 PM
@Brian, #10
That statement is incorrect. Sam Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, began the system of extreme dilutions. Read the article about homeopathy written by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1842 here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html. It clearly describes Hahnemann's serial dilution system.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | June 16, 2009 9:09 PM
You see, Big Pharma is in bed with the government and regulatory authorities. That explains why it has to put up with strict regulations, while purveyors of complementary and alternative medicine can basically do and sell whatever they feel like. It makes perfect sense.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 16, 2009 9:10 PM
#14
"Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 16, 2009 8:51 PM
I zinc that homeopathy is ridiculous."
Thread winner by a nose.
Posted by: the pro from dover | June 16, 2009 9:20 PM
zinc or zwim.
Posted by: ChrisKG | June 16, 2009 9:25 PM
Since we are going to puns I think this should be called Zi-Scam.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 16, 2009 9:38 PM
One of my hobbies is collecting minerals. Every once in awhile you get someone buying gemstones to grind up and put into potions--probably harmless except when the minerals contain arsenic, mercury, etc.
Ever seen the blue people? They're the ones who got a little bit too much silver in the elixir--turns you skin blue permanently. Always wondered why this didn't catch on more among the punks.
Posted by: Neil B ♪ | June 16, 2009 9:39 PM
Minerals. Like lots of zinc, which can cause nerve damage.
That's a reminder, that two very different sorts of stuff get labeled "homeopathic." That's probably not a good idea. One group is the super-diluted stuff based on the opposites theory. That is theoretically hard to believe. The other sort called "homeopathic" has direct-action ingredients in concentrations that can have conventional affects. It may be controversial just how much good zinc does for colds, but the amount in Zicam is apparently not trivial if able to cause nerve damage.
Also, it wouldn't be necessary to kill cold viruses or even help the immune system to offer symptomatic relief. (BTW, do some such things actually help? I hear conflicting reports about Echinacea, etc.) Then there's that pesky placebo effect! Apparently the confusion wasn't ironed out the last thread. People given pills and *told* they were being given medicine got better than those who weren't. That makes it harder to know "what really works."
I and many other people use Zicam spray and find it helpful through our own experience. That's not a "study", but we little people have practical cost/benefit/reality-testing considerations about what to use. If one version causes harm that's an issue too, but makes the idea of "an effect" that much easier to believe.
Posted by: It's me again....... | June 16, 2009 9:41 PM
#21
Posted by: ChrisKG | June 16, 2009 9:25 PM
Since we are going to puns I think this should be called Zi-Scam.
Or possibly...
I zinc, therefore I scam...?
Posted by: the pro from dover | June 16, 2009 9:41 PM
OK. Ultimate pun. I cant draw it so this is a thought experiment. Draw a small insect body. at each of its 6 legs is a zinc atom. Stannouslouse.
Posted by: doug l | June 16, 2009 9:42 PM
Was it invented by a kindergarten teacher?
Posted by: SaraJ | June 16, 2009 9:44 PM
The comments are terrible, of course.
Example: "Ever since I have been using Zicam gel at the first sign of a cold of any kind. I have never actually gotten the cold . It is gone the next day. It works to kill the virus. I am sure that is why the FDA has started bad mouthing it. Actually, I was just waiting for this to happen. I have no problem with my sense of smell. FDA leave us the hell alone. Let me decide what I want to take ."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 9:44 PM
The problem is none of it gets tested or is regulated. It is dangerous if not totally bunk.
Difference is medicine has actual empiricism backing it, altie woo does not. Your little attempt to say that real medicine is just a big guess is not so thinly veiled and very obviously wrong.
The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 16, 2009 9:46 PM
Wonder how Cold-Eeze is going to fare...
Posted by: rrt | June 16, 2009 9:47 PM
Apparently, it's not at all uncommon for clearly labeled "homeopathic" remedies to contain any number of active ingredients at non-homeopathic concentrations, thanks to the lack of regulation.
Posted by: Jane | June 16, 2009 9:48 PM
I thought there was evidence that zinc could help colds. This isn't data, but I've found Zicam (both the nasal and chewable lozenge versions) helpful for colds. The lozenges, at least, use a 1X dilution, so they're not really homeopathic.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
June 16, 2009 9:48 PM
A "friend" provided me with some several years ago. I don't remember why but I decided not to try it. (Maybe the labeling looked fishy.)
The line I've heard from multiple people involved with drug/alcohol recovery around here (Massachusetts) is to not use homeopathic remedies, because they might be adulterated with other things - you don't know what's in them. For a long while I assumed this was a simplification conflating "homeopathic" and "natural" remedies, but this, and a couple comments I've seen elsewhere on scienceblogs recently, lead me to believe I heard it correctly the first time.
Posted by: Asa | June 16, 2009 9:49 PM
I used it when I had a cold. Can't say it helped. The people who recommended that I take it told me it made the cold symptoms less severe.
The packaging said it greatly lessened the symptoms of a cold and I assumed it meant it had been scientifically tested. I assumed that the law wouldn't allow them to say so if it hadn't been at least tentatively proven in clinical trials (how would they now anyways?). They shouldn't have been allowed to claim it did anything if it hadn't been demonstrated in clinical trials. Also, I'm curious to how they tested it if they didn't ... test it.
Well, now I know.
Posted by: Jane | June 16, 2009 9:50 PM
I thought there was evidence that zinc could help colds. This isn't data, but I've found Zicam (both the nasal and chewable lozenge versions) helpful for colds. The lozenges, at least, use a 1X dilution, so they're not really homeopathic.
Posted by: ChrisKG | June 16, 2009 9:50 PM
#24 "It's me again"
"I zinc, therefore I scam...?"
Brilliant! You should send that one in for the next marketing campaign.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 16, 2009 9:50 PM
rrt: You're absolutely right. Look at all the homeopathic nasal decongestant sprays that contain capsaicin.
Posted by: ScienceCat | June 16, 2009 9:50 PM
This is a *fake* homeopathic product - real homeopathic products don't contain active ingredients ;) Actually this isn't so funny - things with real active ingredients need to be regulated.
Since it is a fake homeopathic product, it may actually work (I'm not trying it, though) as per those horrible zinc lozenges.
(ScienceCat learned about metals toxicology in graduate kitten skool and is not a fan of overdoses of even micronutrient metals.)
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 16, 2009 9:51 PM
Pro from Dover:
Sorry, the stannous ion is tin(II), not zinc.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 9:54 PM
And sure that's true, the problem is the lack of regulation that leads to injury or worse.
Posted by: ScienceCat | June 16, 2009 9:55 PM
This is a *fake* homeopathic product - real homeopathic products don't contain active ingredients ;) Actually this isn't so funny - things with real active ingredients need to be regulated.
Since it is a fake homeopathic product, it may actually work (I'm not trying it, though) as per those horrible zinc lozenges.
(ScienceCat learned about metals toxicology in graduate kitten skool and is not a fan of overdosing on even micronutrient metals.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 9:56 PM
sigh
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 9:57 PM
So, the zinc in the spray crosses the mucous membrane and damages the nerves?
Ugh.
...but I have a question: After a google fest I can't find out exactly how zinc damages the nerves, just a lot on Zinc finger domains and diabetes... but I can't find a clear, succinct explanation of the process...
Can anyone help me understand this?
Posted by: ScienceCat | June 16, 2009 9:58 PM
Apologies for the doublepost - it hung then assured me that the post had failed. Mea culpa.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 10:05 PM
ScienceCat:
It's done that for every post I've made today... Gotta hit the back button and check to make sure... I've taken to writing out my replies in wordpad and then copy/pasting just in case my computer barfs and loses the text.
Posted by: Andy Groves | June 16, 2009 10:07 PM
It's been established for years that zinc wipes out the olfactory epithelium. It's an experimental model of anosmia. Why this is surprising to anyone is beyond me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:12 PM
Sciencecat
Kate
Don't take this as me being an asshole, but if you read the whole error message it spells out exactly what to do.
Namely hit back and refresh. Your post will show up.
And what not to do, namely hit post again, or fully repost the comment.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 10:13 PM
these might help a bit, Kate:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/224150
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.neuro.21.1.347
I'm not an expert on the topic, but from what I can tell, it looks like zinc acts on axons directly, causing either a lack of growth or retraction, as opposed to say, acting through demylination or interference/mimicry of neurotransmitters.
Is that what you're asking?
well, I can't say it's succinct, but perhaps the reason is that it's still under study.
Posted by: Robert S. | June 16, 2009 10:15 PM
Many news outlets are distorting the disturbing lack of power that the FDA has. As far as I know, unless the law has recently changed, the FDA has a HUGE hurdle to pass before ordering a recall. It seems that all they have done is require a new registration (including a warning on the box) , and suggesting a recall. I know the WSJ commented on the possibility of problems as early as Q4 02. And it seems that lawsuits were settled in '06 by Matrixx for aprox 12 million dollars. Why this didn't generate a shutdown and recall can be traced back directly to BigVita's lobbying for the DSHEA. In short every single fuckhead that voted for the 1994 DSHEA should be not only ashamed of the results but thrown out on their ears.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 10:17 PM
...OTOH:
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/citation/54/8/1705
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12427906?dopt=AbstractPlus
suggest there is a problem with demyelinization.
could be both are effects of hyperzincemia, depending on circumstances?
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 10:17 PM
Rev.: I don't take it as you being an asshole. I was explaining it in the nicest way possible, without any accusations of a lack of reading comprehension, because the last time I tried explaining it I was accused.... of being an asshole, and told to explain it the way I did here.
Heh.
Sheesh... a girl tries to be nice.... *mumble* *mumble*
(Just kidding!)
Posted by: booger | June 16, 2009 10:18 PM
So what you're trying to say is that people who use Zicam don't smell good?
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | June 16, 2009 10:21 PM
Doesn't surprise me one bit. During the early days of the zinc-against-colds craze, I tried some zinc lozenges right after developing cold symptoms. The cold didn't budge, and my sense of taste was screwed up for several days. Needless to say, I never messed with zinc-based cold remedies again.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:21 PM
Yeah normally I am an asshole when trying to explain it so even when I try to be nice, I come off like an asshole. Which isn't surprising, because truth be told, I probably am an asshole. Just ask Mrs. BigDumbChimp.
sorry. ;)
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 10:22 PM
Ichthyic:
That's EXACTLY what I wanted to know. I think I must have borked my search terms, or was not looking deep enough into the GoogleHole.
Thanks very much!
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 16, 2009 10:23 PM
booger, you're being inscentsitive.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 10:25 PM
ah, I think I see where the complication lies.
evidently, high levels of zinc will simultaneously reduce copper levels, resulting in demyelinization.
the direct effects of zinc itself on nerves is probably closer to the effects on axons mentioned in the first papers I posted.
while spinning through the lit, I did run across another interesting article....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18525032?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
uh, so don't go snortin' up too much denture cream out there people!
Posted by: ScienceCat | June 16, 2009 10:27 PM
Rev - message I got stated post failed without the caution to wait and not repost, back button revealed nada. The error message I got when I posted apologizing for the double DID have the caution (and was much longer). I don't post often enough to be familiar with the current behaviour of the post machine here so when the message stated failure I trusted it. Yes, I did read the error messages - I am a reading addict and cannot resist the printed word even on cereal boxes. Cheers, beers und relaxen and watchen das Zinkenlights. ;)
Posted by: Jon | June 16, 2009 10:27 PM
Zicam actually has at least one published study indicating effectiveness:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509647
The usual route (this is anecdotal, not from the paper above) seems to be that it doesn't make symptoms go away immediately, but the symptoms don't get any worse from when you start taking it.
Of course, regardless of effectiveness, potential loss of smell is a rather large side effect.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 10:28 PM
@Rev.:
I have no issue with assholes. I am one, after all. No, really. I never sugar coat, and I've been told I lack tact and have a .... directness that some find off putting.
So stop apologizing and join me in celebration of the incredibly-direct-approach-which-borders-on-tactless-to-those-sensitive-types.
I'd tel you to embrace your inner asshole, but it just makes it sound like I'm telling you to "shove it".
heh.
Posted by: Billy C | June 16, 2009 10:29 PM
#s 10 & 17:
The dilution principle was clearly in place when Edgar Allan Poe lampooned homeopathy in "Never bet the devil your head." Poor Toby Dammit does just that and before long is beheaded. Enter the homeopathists:
"He did not long survive his terrible loss. The homeopathists did not give him little enough physic, and what little they did give him he hesitated to take. So in the end he grew worse, and at length died, a lesson to all riotous livers."
(Also, linking this to another thread, I once worked several years in a large multibranch public library system, next door to the collection development librarian whose duty it was to respond to complaints about books in the collection. I only ever knew her to withdraw one book based on such complaints: it was a book of "homeopathic" remedies.
A user had complained that the book's advice was dangerous. The librarian consulted a local physician, who read the book and returned it with several pages marked and the comment, "If you follow these instructions you will die." Call me a book-burner but I think she was right to pull that one from the collection.)
Posted by: magista | June 16, 2009 10:31 PM
Now if only they could create something that only temporarily knocked out your sense of smell, they could make a fortune on it as a diet aid, never mind a cold remedy. Because what's the point in eating if you can't taste anything?
That I'd pay real money for.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:33 PM
ha!
Posted by: natb | June 16, 2009 10:33 PM
Dang... I took some of this stuff back in December for a cold for maybe two days, and it was the shortest cold I ever had - although that probably had more to do with the fact that I was no longer working retail and so could actually rest. I was impressed, though. I guess I'll take the placebo effect where I can get it! I had no idea it was 'homeopathic' - I was at my mom's for the holidays and she brought it home with some more traditional meds in the hopes of making me feel better, and I was too miserable to study labels...
Fortunately (depending on the stench), I can still smell just fine, as far as I know. But I'll know to look closer at those official-looking packages at the drug store...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 10:36 PM
Almost all metals other than potassium, sodium and calcium have toxic effects on the body. Some enzymes require iron, zinc, copper and magnesium for activity. A normal diet can supply these essential nutrients for most people, but too much can cause problems. Spraying a zinc solution, which is probably slightly acidic, on a mucous membrane could damage the tissue. I would guess it could interrupt the ion channels in the cells.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:40 PM
Well, I'm assuming that in the right dosage potassium, sodium and calcium can be quite toxic.
Posted by: Timothy | June 16, 2009 10:44 PM
They're doing it wrong! Don't they know homeopathic "remedies" are just water mixed with water!?!?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 10:46 PM
Well, I'm assuming that in the right dosage potassium, sodium and calcium can be quite toxic.
I wouldn't try chewing on a hunk of pure sodium metal.
:P
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/index.html
Posted by: eponymous | June 16, 2009 10:47 PM
Huh. I've actually used this stuff before- I get terrible allergies during the springtime, and my girlfriend came over one day with a whole bunch of stuff she bought at Rite Aid. I only took it once, since it didn't actually do anything (anything positive, that is). Apparently, I didn't read the box carefully enough- if I had, I would have read the little "homeopathic" label on the bottom corner of it, which I have just now noticed.
At least my olfactory organs are still working properly... I think.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 10:50 PM
Caught me out Rev. BDC. Everything can be a poison, dosage matters. If you only need 10 mg/day of zinc, and squirt 50 mg up your nose...Posted by: JunkScience | June 16, 2009 10:51 PM
I'm warning you. It's a disaster waiting to build: when the scientist-talking-heads start reporting versions of stories without questioning them, without providing explanations of the fallacies, and without even bringing in authoritative scientific voices to knock their claims down, all you do is feed the media frenzy. It's even worse than "he said she said" journalism. That's exactly what This Blogger has done.
I found this site when I googled “Zicam” by “most recent”, obviously not “most relevant”. I am appalled that a blog dedicated to the scientific view would host this blogger. I call for your voluntary removal.
I would hope that a real science view would have pointed out any or all of the following. Real science is evidence and researched based, and hard. Blogging garbage as science-guru is easy and no different from anti-science creationist ragings you claim to warn against.
First, “Homeopathic” is a FDA designation, based on earlier laws grandfathering many drugs including aspirin (which by the way has never been “approved” by the FDA) and grouping them into regulatory, not therapeutic, categories. Zicam’s active ingredient and dose fall in this category. Specifically the FDA called out in their warning letter today that this drug was “manufactured and distributed without FDA approval under enforcement policies set out in the FDA’s Compliance Policy Guide ...(CPG 7132.15)” [Per FDA] enforcement discretion...”
Zicam has an active pharmaceutical ingredient (Zinc) with both a KNOWN mechanism of action, and peer reviewed journal articles of double blind randomized patient studies showing EFFICACY. (Mr Blogger, I feel I need to remind you that real scientists consider this kind of study as the Gold Standard)
The known mechanism of action is that elemental Zinc interferes with the cold virus attaching via the zinc finger cell wall receptor. Thus blocking viral uptake into the cell.
The efficacy of Zinc has been shown in peer reviewed journal articles. For example this one from the Cleveland Clinic ( http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/35 ) OR this one; http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=1464
Anosmia (lost of sensation of smell) is a KNOWN rare side-effect of the cold virus infection. Even rare side-effects in diseases that are common (“common cold”) are thus expected. Given the large number of people with the common cold, and knowing that in America most cold suffers take cold remedies such as Zicam, one would expect a number of victims of anosmia who also have taken Zicam. A scientist, (not this Blogger), might point out that correlation does not prove causation.
The scientific question is: “is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?” (That is called a hypothesis). ( And the answer is there is no evidence for this hypothesis.)
The more relevant question is also: Is the scientific community able to muster a rational inquiry or have the “talking heads” such as this Blogger joined the media frenzy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 10:58 PM
Or JunkScience, do you wish to really keep defending the indefensible? Your call. Oh, I think the law suits from those who lost their sense of smell have more to do with the product being recalled than any FDA action. CYA.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 16, 2009 11:01 PM
To the ... troll ... above, attacking PZ:
With your unparseable hypothesis, you've literally set up a straw man and then knocked it down.
Zinc toxicity causes nerve damage. There is no regulation on the amount of zinc in this product, or any other homeopathic 'remedy'. This is the story here.
Posted by: Kate | June 16, 2009 11:01 PM
Oh Junk Science....
I just want to pat you on the head and say: "There, there..."
...but I'm afraid of catching whatever it is that's caused you to go soft in the head.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 11:04 PM
You know, your post might have made sense if there weren't the following issues:
130 people have independently been confirmed as having neuronal damage as a result of using this specific product.
This is documented, and NOT anything resembling the side effects of the common cold. Or are you really going to say that a measurable side effect of rhinovirus infection is permanent neuropathy?
Using this product can result in hyperzincemia.
hyperzincemia leads to neuronal damage (directly and indirectly due to the resultant hypocupremia).
and how I found all this out?
by (just in the last hour, in fact!) examining the relevant scientific literature. Which, btw, it just so happens I cited just above your ridiculous post.
so, now not sounding so scientific, I'll just say to you:
fuck off you spamming loser.
Posted by: junkScience | June 16, 2009 11:13 PM
Again,
The scientific question is: “is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?”
The more relevant question is also: Is the scientific community able to muster a rational inquiry or have the “talking heads” such as Ichthyic joined the media frenzy.
Science is dead, long live the losers who use "F*ck" instead of science discourse
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 11:17 PM
The
scientific questionstrawman is:fixed.
...and yes, we recognized the strawman right off.
no need to repeat yourself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:19 PM
Take your discourse to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Write your paper. We are uninterested in listening to your inane whining. So take it elsewhere, where people might agree with you. We won't.Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 16, 2009 11:19 PM
He gave links to relevant literature. You repeated the same straw man hypothesis (which is still totally unreadable). You ignored the fact that temporary anosmia is not the same as permanent anosmia.
It's your turn to put up or shut up, kiddo. Tits or GTFO.
Posted by: kay | June 16, 2009 11:20 PM
Actually...there are quite a few double blind studies that have shown Zinc nasal gel and other zinc products to be effective in reducing the length of colds (a dozen or more will pop up on pubmed). Of course, the side effect is bad as well. My daughter used Zicam when she was younger and doesn't have a very good sense of smell. I don't know whether this if from the Zicam.
Posted by: Stogoe
|
June 16, 2009 11:21 PM
We got a live one! And what a name, too. JunkScience, how appropriate.
Posted by: junkScience | June 16, 2009 11:28 PM
Regarding poster "Ichthyic" (or is that poser) who refers to:
"examining the relevant scientific literature. Which, btw, it just so happens I cited just above your ridiculous post."
Do you mean your link link to "Sodium Party" which is a web page of some yahoo who exploded sodium for fireworks. And this proves???
Or do you mean the article that sites:
"Zinc concentrations ranging from about 17,000 to 34,000 mug/g were identified in Fixodent and Poli-Grip denture creams." (Two products used by millions and still on the market by the way
And what is the comparison concentration in Zicam that makes this relavant???
Treat your self and the readers to as many unfounded theories as you wish,
BUT Again,
The scientific question is: “is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?”
Science is dead, long live the losers who use "F*ck" instead of science discourse
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:30 PM
JunkScience, if you are so gung-ho, start you own company and make the stuff. Put your money and risk where your mouth is.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 16, 2009 11:34 PM
@ 34,
No,its not data,its an anecdote. *Sigh*.
@ 58,
But,but.....doesnt that mean that it does,not,actually,DO anything then??
@ 75,
Please look up the meaning of the word scientific.
The true scandal,as usual,is that woo is given free reign,without supervision or approval,and evry dork can sell you poison in a bottle,as long as they call it "homeopathic".
It doesnt take a genius to see that its possible that topical Zinc might damage olfactory sensors in the nose,the effect of zinc,as Ichty has shown,is well demonstrated.
It is on the product manufacturer to show that their product works,and is not harmful,not the other way around.
Posted by: The Petey | June 16, 2009 11:35 PM
That totally makes sense.
I had a cold once and was using Cold Eeze lozenges. I went to sushi with a friend and noticed a funny taste in my maki. The sushi chef put a lot of wasabi in it. I normally can't stand the heat of wasabi - I'm a light weight. I got no heat what so ever. I smeared a glob of the stuff right onto my tongue - nothing. I was not able to pick up the heat from the wasabi at all. It still tasted nasty to me (like blue cheese which I also don't like) but no heat at all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 11:37 PM
Do you mean your link link to "Sodium Party"
nope.
...and you're obviously a complete moron to even suggest it.
Or do you mean the article that sites [sic]
again, nope.
keep going... unless you're entirely retarded from snorting too much zinc, I'm sure you'll find the ones I was referring to.
here's a hint:
They would be the ones I mentioned that actually document how zinc causes neuropathy.
Posted by: junkScience | June 16, 2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Nerd of RedHair
RE: your statement:
"Take your discourse to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Write your paper. We are uninterested in listening to your inane whining. So take it elsewhere,
Thank you for proving that
1)
Science is dead,
2)
Definitively answering my first posts question:
"Is the scientific community able to muster a rational inquiry or have the “talking heads” such as this Blogger joined the media frenzy."
QED
Posted by: Lee | June 16, 2009 11:40 PM
Wonderful my girlfriend swears by the stuff.
Some people worry about homeopathic remedies being to weak. I worry when they're strong.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 11:41 PM
Thank you for proving that
1)
Science is dead,
happy then?
will you take your erroneous inanity and shove it up your ass on your way out?
that's a good lad.
Posted by: Abber | June 16, 2009 11:42 PM
Well, there's another response to the "what's the harm?" question regarding alternative medicines. Homeopaths should stick with what they know best: magic beans with absolutely nothing in them but wishful thinking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:43 PM
Science is done in the peer reviewed scientific journals. Why don't you take your argument there? Unless you know you have nothing, and must whine at blogs like here. So, anything you say is taken with a grain of salt, and the longer you whine, the bigger the grain of salt is.Science is not done at this blog. Science is only explained. And you have explained nothing except your prejudices.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 16, 2009 11:45 PM
junkscience the retard @ 86,
Way to miss the point,again.
This is about drug safety,and the burden of proof of efficacy and safety should be with the manufacturer.Not a blogger or newspaper's job to prove the stuff is dangerous.
Although everyone who's not totally stupid should be able to see that its quite possible that this nasal gel does indeed cause permanent anosmia in some.Again,thats not the point !
Posted by: JunkScience | June 16, 2009 11:48 PM
RE:"It is on the product manufacturer to show that their product works,and is not harmful,not the other way around."
TRUE = That would be a randomized double blind study showing efficacy and safety. maybe like this one from the Cleveland Clinic!
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/35
So again that leaves us with:
“is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?”
And as I said before:Real science is evidence and researched based, and hard. Blogging garbage as science-guru is easy and no different from anti-science creationist ragings you claim to warn against.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:54 PM
Then present your evidence to a peer reviewed journal in the form of a paper. Or submit a complaint to the FDA. After all, it is a public agency. That is positive action. Non-positive action is just whining here like you are doing. We are more concerned with public safety. That is our choice. If you don't like that, go elsewhere. That should be your choice.Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 11:55 PM
I had a cold once and was using Cold Eeze lozenges ... I smeared a glob of the stuff [wasabi] right onto my tongue - nothing.
actually, in that case it likely has little to do with the zinc; the effects of zinc on nerves takes much longer to develop.
likely the lozenges contained menthol or some other ingredient that acts as a local anesthetic. Many of those cold lozenges are also meant to treat sore throats, too.
...and since trollboy is hanging about, I want to stress that temporary effects of cold lozenges have NOTHING AT ALL to do with permanent effects due to hyperzincemia.
it likely takes quite a lot of usage (or specific products that have way too much zinc to begin with), before any permanent adverse effects arise.
Which, btw, is one of the reasons I mentioned the study on a couple of very popular denture creams.
which, of course, our newest troll seems to have totally misinterpreted in his knee jerk defense of a fucking cold lozenge.
gees, at this point it sounds like there should be a post about this by Orac, to avoid people panicking that every cold lozenge with zinc is going to destroy them at first lick.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 17, 2009 12:01 AM
junkscience,
to be taken seriously you need to do better than quote me a study with 78(!)participants that finds great benefit for Zinc,as opposed to 8/14 studies(even quoted in that link of yours !) and a large metaanalysis(also quoted),that didnt.
Also,the participants were followed up by phone,for a short period of time,and you wouldnt expect Zinc to cause anosmia that quickly.
I notice the commonest adverse effect reported was nasal burning.
Posted by: Jason | June 17, 2009 12:01 AM
Maybe I just completely missed it, but have there been no posts on this blog about Iran?
I would think a democratic revolution in the world's largest Theocracy might be worthy of comment!
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 12:02 AM
maybe like this one from the Cleveland Clinic!
efficacy?
maybe. Still debatable, and certainly far less than advertised.
safety?
nope.
which, btw, is why the huge number of cases regarding hyperzincemia arising from this product have forced the FDA to ask the manufacturer to do the studies needed.
here, go read this review, and when you've done that, come back and tell us what's wrong with the conclusions they reach.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=caruso[auth]%20AND%20prober[auth]
no wait, scratch that. I really don't give a fuck. Don't bother coming back.
Posted by: Kate | June 17, 2009 12:03 AM
Ichthyic:
I had a good chuckle at the denture cream study. I have to wonder why those people were using SO MUCH of the stuff. It sounds like the patients had bone loss, weight loss or some other condition which affected their jaw, causing the dentures to be ill fitting, or their dentists had not waited sufficient time for the swelling due to extraction to subside before fitting them for their appliances. I mean, if a denture fits properly, you really shouldn't need very much adhesive, if any.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 12:08 AM
I have to wonder why those people were using SO MUCH of the stuff.
Haven't you ever tried snorting it?
It's a great high!
(uh, just kidding of course)
Posted by: JunkScience | June 17, 2009 12:11 AM
Ichthyic
RE:"here, go read this review, and when you've done that, come back and tell us what's wrong with the conclusions they reach."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=caruso[auth]%20AND%20prober[auth]
AND THE CONCLUSION IS.... (wait for it)...
"One well-designed study did report a positive effect of zinc nasal gel."
THANK YOU!
Posted by: Rev bigdumbchimp | June 17, 2009 12:14 AM
Still missing the point
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 12:31 AM
One well-designed study did report a positive effect of zinc nasal gel."
ever heard the term: quote mine?
out of HOW MANY? Or can't you count that high?
here, let me help you:
1 study out of 105.
what was the ACTUAL conclusion?
let me help you again:
and, of course you didn't actually read the paper, which also documents some of the nasty side effects.
so much for Mr. concern-troll for science.
bye.
Posted by: Ryan | June 17, 2009 12:40 AM
I remember using something that looked like that back in the winter of '97 or '98. I was told it would either stop my runny nose or act as a decongestant (I forget which). I was 15 or 16 at the time so had no idea what it was. And on top of that I have a very reduced sense of smell.
Though if memory serves me I haven't had a decent sense of smell since around '90.
Posted by: Dave W. | June 17, 2009 12:40 AM
Every time I hear the term "junk science" I can't help but think of the irony which is one Steve Milloy, libertarian tool of the Cato Institute, FOX News columnist and promoter of junk science (especially climate-science denial). JunkScience's rampant ad hominems, insistence upon committing category errors and inability to engage with the actual science fit the MO of "The Junkman" (Milloy) pretty well. It's probably just an admirer, though.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 17, 2009 12:41 AM
Here's the absolute best part about the troll's argument: So long as there's a demonstrable effect, he couldn't give two shits about the risks.
So, JunkScience, there's this new weight loss plan. It's called CUT OFF YOUR LEGS. It's guaranteed to work! THANK YOU!
Posted by: junkScience | June 17, 2009 1:11 AM
1)
zinc lozenges NOT EQUAL to zinc nasal
Lets quote the whole conclusion for those who don't surf over there:
"CONCLUSIONS: This structured review suggests that the therapeutic effectiveness of zinc lozenges has yet to be established. One well-designed study did report a positive effect of zinc nasal gel."
2)
RE"Recent reports of potentially permanent anosmia caused by intranasal zinc therapy warrant careful analysis of the therapeutic effects of zinc."
And where is the careful analysis? Certainly missing from this web blog.
There has been NO careful analysis presented by this blog.
The few studis on zinc NASAL GEL, although limited, they do show NO harm.
As to its potential for harm: Again, as at the beginning:
“is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?” HINT: Its called a control group.
Forget your theories, show me the data. You have none.
Lots of pet theories on the blog, on how IF zinc is responsible, what the mechanism of action might be. But no data that ZInc IS responsible.
The best you can say is IF the zinc gel is causing loss of smell, "my pet theory" might explain why.
(although the exploding sodium website quoted by Ichthyic's pet theory probably doesn't explain much other than his psychosis)
Just pet theories defended as religious truth. Blogging garbage as science-guru is easy and no different from anti-science creationist ragings you claim to warn against.
Real science is evidence and researched based, and hard.
So science must say its an open question if nasal gel causes anosmia, or if it is other factors such as the cold virus itself. The best answer now is this is an interesting question of is zinc gel causing anosmia.
And no i am not a troll, I am just a doctor who came to science blog looking for answers, and found charlatans dressing themselves up as scientist-priests. To hell with PhDs, it turns out you are no better, and equally confused, as my MD and Nurse Practitioner peers. You can't distinguish science from dogma, hypothesis from data. (and if I stick to the AMA website at least I will get CME!)
Posted by: Donna B. | June 17, 2009 1:12 AM
Kate -- my father has had dentures ever since I can remember. He had all his teeth pulled when he was 30, which he knows now was a huge mistake. However dental care in 1953 wasn't what it is today.
He has at least 10 sets of dentures at any given time. Some fit on one day, another fits another. None fit well. He's used denture cream 'forever' but hopefully he's one of the lucky ones that didn't use too much.
Anyway, I just wanted to give you an answer to the question of why people can easily be in the position to use too much denture cream. In fact, my father is probably lucky that he could always afford a new pair. Most people don't have $2-3,000 extra to spend on new dentures every year.
Posted by: Wesley Voorhies | June 17, 2009 1:16 AM
Again, like mentioned before, 130 something cases of anosmia is not a number to be alarming. The product is still harmless, as are all homeopathic remedies for the human body. No one has declared the FDA a shinning example of good science, and their reports should be investigated just like any other source. The strength of the survey was strong and the result was extremely weak. Too weak to publish and much too weak to show substantial correlation.
Just see if this article makes it to a proper peer reviewed publication. It will not.
Posted by: junkScience | June 17, 2009 1:18 AM
RE: "Minerals. Like lots of zinc, which can cause nerve damage"
Not "Can", But DO they cause damage when the product is used as intended?
“is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?”
Still waiting for an answer...
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 1:28 AM
"is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?"
and as mentioned before, idiot, show us the individuals with permanent nasal neuropathy as a side effect of rhinovirus infection.
130 individuals have already been diagnosed with nasal neuropathy as a result of increased zinc concentrations.
It's been already well documented that increased zinc concentrations lead to neuropathy.
zinc lozenges NOT EQUAL to zinc nasal
*sigh* you didn't actually read the paper. If you had, you would have seen why this is entirely irrelevant.
they do show NO harm.
and this is just a blatant lie.
But no data that ZInc IS responsible.
again, not for nothing did I list all the articles, including the review article, that not only document the effects of zinc in these products, but also document the mechanism OF effect.
Real science is evidence and researched based, and hard.
lying like you're doing is easy, though.
there is only one conclusion someone can make when presented with someone like yourself who refuses to see the obvious and instead presents an army of strawmen in defense of a commercial product:
you have a vested interest.
it's obviously nothing to do with the science involved.
yes, we see through you.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | June 17, 2009 1:31 AM
Hey Junkscience doc. Did you even read the so-called positive studies? I did. I discussed them. They're not very good research, making conclusions on, as best as I can tell, one patient result! Furthermore, there are quality journals and there are, well, lower quality journals. Cochrane Reviews shows it doesn't work. Other articles show it doesn't work. So, I'm going to doubt you really are a physician since you are giving too much weight to articles that just haven't been supported by a lot of evidence. Zinc gluconate does squat. Maybe it's not dangerous (anosmia seems very rare), but why would you accept even a 0.001% risk for 0.000% benefit. That's bad medicine my friend, very bad medicine.
To the real scientists on here: I'm a bit confused by Zicam research. It appears to have a concentration of zinc gluconate of 33 mmol/l. That doesn't sound like a homeopathic dilution, since there are a lot of molecules floating in the blood at that level or lower. Or is it really possible the FDA classified this drug as a homeopathic one? I'm just unconvinced of that.
Posted by: junkScience | June 17, 2009 1:56 AM
Michael Simpson
POSITIVES
The Cochrane Reviews states as their conclusion "One well-designed study did report a positive effect of zinc nasal gel." I have to go with their description of how good the studies are ("well-designed"), not your conclusion of "They're not very good research" (sorry I am sure you are a good scientist, just unknown to me)
NEGATIVES
Is there any peer reviewed published data showing that any of the patients with anosmia was CAUSED by zinc gel. (the answer is NO). Is there any data that more cold suffers who take zinc wind up with anosmia than those cold sufferers who dont take zinc? (the answer is NO).
Agree, that if it is an open question whether zinc causes anosmia, then we need more data. Disagree that we have that data now.
Real benefit, unknown risk?
Except that I think the risks are overstated. These were not 130 patients reported to the FDA by their doctors (which for all other drugs is pretty much how it works. Rather it is was 130 patients in a class-action lawsuit submitted to the FDA by the same lawyer. Obviously the law firm has no interest in real epidemiology. They just want to sue on the outcome, not the causation. Is there any data that more cold suffers who take zinc wind up with anosmia than those cold sufferers who dont take zinc? (the answer is NO).
Thus I keep coming back to "what does the science say". But all I get are scientist-turned-priests preaching dogma as if it were science. (Zinc is the devil! believe me in the absence of data - its called faith!)
Posted by: Kagato
|
June 17, 2009 2:20 AM
Now, I have nothing to do with medical research whatsoever; but based on Ichthyic's comments above (and a brief online search), it sounds there are no documented cases of cold infections causing permanent anosmia.
(Or at the very least, they are incredibly rare.)
If that is the case:
Yes.
Given 130 cases where 0 would normally be expected: Yes.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 2:22 AM
These were not 130 patients reported to the FDA by their doctors (which for all other drugs is pretty much how it works. Rather it is was 130 patients in a class-action lawsuit submitted to the FDA by the same lawyer.
oops:
what about the other 800 (separate from this 130) previously unreported cases (filed with the company) that the FDA is now looking at:
Posted by: Gorogh | June 17, 2009 2:50 AM
One question I have been asking myself regularly for some years now, and assuming that some knowledgeable person at Pharyngula might have an answer: Is there anything known about, well, an inverse nocebo effect, or however it might be called? I am not talking about the nocebo effect sensu stricto (developing symptoms without medical/chemical reasons), but about whether or not the disbelief in the efficacy of medical products might actually diminish this efficacy?
I will not be surprised if this has actually been studied, but as yet I have never encountered a study addressing, or a term describing the concept.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | June 17, 2009 3:06 AM
Hey Junkscience, you seem to ignore what makes up the scientific process including how a conclusion is written. Most scientists, and I make no claim to being a scientist, I'm a Big Pharma shill, are very cautious in making conclusions, because science is not absolute.
Yes, there was ONE well designed study that showed something. But giving that ONE study weight against the numerous well-designed studies that show nothing is giving undue weight to one study. You see, that's what most alt-med woo-pushing individuals in the homeopathy field do–find the one study that proves their point, quickly ignoring the thousands that don't.
If you weren't such a poor writer, I'd think you were Dana Ullman, woo-meister extraordinaire.
Posted by: junkScience | June 17, 2009 3:18 AM
RE: no documented cases of cold infections causing permanent anosmia.
(Or at the very least, they are incredibly rare.)
This is just plain wrong. 60% of patients experiencing post-viral anosmia have permanent loss of smell. (trust me I am a doctor)
Or don't trust me and read for your self...
http://books.google.com/books?id=JSvZN3y9hSAC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=Postviral+olfactory+dysfunction&source=bl&ots=PX9UF8E6tE&sig=Y-EpmBc7QAKselhJhaKnISH5a5U&hl=en&ei=e5M4SvnJO4WIsgO5v4z-Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPA75,M1
OR
Clinical evaluation and symptoms of chemosensory impairment: one thousand consecutive cases from the Nasal Dysfunction Clinic in San Diego. Harris R, Davidson TM, Murphy C, Gilbert PE, Chen M. (not available on line)
Yes that is 1,000 consecutive patients.
Ichthyic would have you believe that post viral anosmia is 100% reversible. So all the permanent sufferers must be from Zinc. This is not true, and thus all the arguements fail.
“is there an excess number of anosmia suffers in those patients who took Zicam vs, those cold suffers that did not take Zicam?”
You are making up data ("Given 130 cases where 0 would normally be expected) Specifically "Zero" would not be expected.
As I have been saying "You have no data." Only scientist-turned-priests preaching dogma as if it were science. (Zinc is the devil! believe me in the absence of data - its called faith!)
I am just a doctor who came to science blog looking for answers, and found charlatans dressing themselves up as scientist-priests. All equally confused, as unable to distinguish hypothesis and pet theories from data.
I think this web blog is the true junk science.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | June 17, 2009 3:25 AM
Hey Junkscience, you claim you're a physician and you come to a blog for answers to medical questions?
I am flabbergasted.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 17, 2009 3:27 AM
Doctor of Naturopathy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 3:29 AM
I am flabbergasted.
i'm not. we get liars here all the time.
they're usually creationists, though.
This guy sure seems hell bent on defending his sponsor's product, though.
Posted by: Madhu | June 17, 2009 3:32 AM
What about the zinc oxide in many sunscreen products? Does that cause any peripheral nerve damage as well? Loss of tactile sensitivity in the skin? Any cause for concern there?
Wondering idly in the middle of the night here, not inclined to launching a lit search yet...
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 3:36 AM
doesn't look like it. I don't think zinc oxide is readily absorbable through the epidermis.
just don't eat it, or snort it, and you should be fine.
:)
Posted by: Gorogh | June 17, 2009 3:37 AM
Reviewed my above post. To my mind, treatment efficacy has been assessed mostly regarding positive (in the sense of addition, not valence) effects, Placebo and Nocebo. I have not read about anything regarding negative effects (X and Y in the following list):
Does anyone know anything about these latter two? Are they even accessible empirically (I suppose they are - in the same way as the other two effects -, except that people who do not believe in the efficacy of a treatment tend not to have it applied to them...)?
Posted by: Gorogh | June 17, 2009 3:43 AM
p.s.: scienceblogs' automatic <li>-formatting sucks.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | June 17, 2009 3:51 AM
Well, I am a doctor (and occasional pharyngulite), and we were taught that permanent post-viral anosmia is very rare - after all, we all get colds, and how many people do you know who are anosmic? I don't know any, and the few I have come across clinically were either age or trauma related.
Junkscience, I think it's unlikely you're a doctor - I'm not certain, however, because I have encountered a few physicians who are incapable of making a decent assessment of a scientific paper, or who will lie repeatedly once they have been shown to be wrong.
Either way, you are not worth my time.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | June 17, 2009 4:20 AM
Eh, junkScience, postviral anosmia is very rare. How do I know? Very simple, where I live almost everyone gets a cold once or twice a year. Almost everyone can smell. Ergo, the incidence rate must be low enough that we're not normally confronted with it. Even an incidence rate as low as 1 in 10 would be utterly inescapable.
So you're comparing the two on completely different scales, artificially scaling postviral anosmia up by the inverse of the incidence rate. I have a strong suspicion that you sneaked the permanent/temporary anosmia in there because you knew no one would buy a 100%.
A real doctor wouldn't abuse statistics like that, so I'm pretty certain that you're just one of those internet tough guys posting from someone's basement somewhere because he hasn't got anything better to do anyway.
Posted by: Logicel | June 17, 2009 4:37 AM
JunkScience could be a medical doctor who has embraced CAM. This type can be very arrogant--only they know what true science is. In other words, junk science is true science and true science is junk to these arrogant fools.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 17, 2009 4:42 AM
Junk science-There has been NO careful analysis presented by this blog.-
No because this is a blog. Not a bloody zinc laboratory.
Posted by: 386sx | June 17, 2009 4:46 AM
I see from the drudgereport that another fundie senator is upholding the sanctity of marriage. A "Promise Keeper" fundie no less.
Posted by: a non | June 17, 2009 4:58 AM
we were taught that permanent post-viral anosmia is very rare
So is permanent post-Zicam anosmia. "junkScience"'s points are not entirely invalid.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 17, 2009 5:07 AM
And the winner is...
Ichthyic!!
By technical knockout.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | June 17, 2009 5:20 AM
To Ichthyic. I guess my sarcasm didn't transmit across the internet so well. :)
JunkScience is probably not a physician, because of the "trust me, I'm a doctor" statement. That might have passed the "sniff test" (pun intended) 30 years ago, but we're a bit smarter than that these days.
I'm guessing that most physicians probably wouldn't have been curious about Zicam anyways, because after many years of observing common colds, they would have noticed that very little can be done to really alter the course of the disease. And if zinc gluconate worked, Merck, GSK, Sanofi, and every other pharmaceutical company would patented new formulations and drug delivery systems, and marketed them aggressively.
Posted by: Robyn Slinger | June 17, 2009 5:20 AM
As an aside, which I learned only very recently: homeopathy supporters are adamant to avoid peppermint because of possible side effects and unfortunate interaction with the homeopathic, er, remedies. I mean, this is really the icing on the cake, as if homeopaths were looking for anything to file under the 'undesirable interactions' category just to *cough* gain credibility.
How on Earth did they pick peppermint, I wonder?
'Clearly we cannot declare it interacts with real medication, because the patient shouldn't take any anyway.'
'What about alcohol?'
'Naaah, too obvious. We need something weirder.'
'Like Marshmallows? Chewing gum? Toothpaste?'
'That's the spirit! Hold on, I sense a pattern... What about we forbide peppermint?'
(Actually they should have recommended to avoid alcohol free beer while under homeopathic therapy.)
Posted by: Robert S. | June 17, 2009 5:34 AM
I just did a wee bit of research and as far as I can tell non mechanical anosmia is pretty damn rare in URI cases. A quick search didn't turn up any good prevalence information for viral caused anosmia but as it seems to develop in a small number of cases of rhinosinusitis, and that apparently only occurs in a percent or so of rhinovirus infections. Given that the overall prevalence of anosmia is estimated to be about 2 million in the US, and the incidence of rhinosinusitis is ~15% of the US population per year, the numbers seem point at zicam as a factor, if not the cause of a significant number of anosmia cases. If anyone has better numbers or is willing to do a bit more math I would love to see the results.
Posted by: Gorogh | June 17, 2009 5:36 AM
@Robyn Slinger (#133), one really wonders what their actual justification for this is, since pointing to systematic medical research might not be a viable strategy for homeopaths. And if there is no factual basis for the peppermint idea, and granted your statements regards a relevant number of homeopaths adhering to that idea, how on earth do they collectively subscribe to such nonsense? I wonder if these memes take the same routes as urban legends...
The alternative is, of course, a conspiracy.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 17, 2009 6:00 AM
You look at it the right way, "junkscience" is an appropriate nom de Internet for the fellow.
BTW, I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on tv. I was yelled at for playing doctor back in '57.
Posted by: amhovgaard | June 17, 2009 6:01 AM
#27: that anecdote about taking the remedy when feeling the onset of a cold and then getting better is actually quite interesting... because, in my experience, that's what happens most of the time even if I don't take anything whatsoever (and I don't). I start to cough a bit, get a runny nose and feel a little "off"... and a few hours later I'm fine again. I always assumed that was because I'd encountered a close relative of that virus before, and so my immune system managed to kill it before I got too ill. But if I'd tried some kind of woo I guess I would have believed it cured me.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 17, 2009 6:06 AM
Patient: Doc, how long do you think this cold will last.
Doctor: That depends.
P: What do you mean?
D: If it goes untreated it'll last around 14 days.
P: If I get it treated?
D: Two weeks.
P: And if I use something like ZiCam?
D: A fortnight, but your sense of smell goes kablooie.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 17, 2009 6:19 AM
The woo is strong in this thread.
You were shown,had you bothered to read,that this is the number of cases that are in the class action lawsuit,there is a further 800 out there,and its likely that more people might come forward once this becomes more public.
But even if it were "only" 130 cases,that would still be considered a severe adverse effect for any approved medical product,and you can bet your ass it would be pulled faster than you can say "homeopathic".
Posted by: MadScientist | June 17, 2009 6:33 AM
Hey, if it's ho-moo-pathetic isn't it meant to have nothing but water in it? Or is this yet another case of "nonsense, it means whatever I want it to, no more and no less"? This could be a good thing though - the FDA must require that quack products undergo extensive testing to demonstrate that they will do no harm - and while they're at it they may as well demand evidence for any claims that the crap works.
Posted by: Robert S. | June 17, 2009 7:31 AM
Homeopathic, in the marketing sense means the FDA can't do shit till bodies start piling up. If homeopathic meant nothing (o but H20, EtOH, Lactose, or Properly labeled, proven safe carrier it would be mostly harmless. As it is today, "natural", "suplement", and "homeopathic", mean at best unregulated, at worst deadly. As the industries most reputable sources seem to suggest everywhere from 100 to 100-300 stock dilutions of everything from arsenic to zinc is reasonable, and suggest giving sick and weak persons the "lowest potency" ie: the highest concentrations, all I can say is stay the hell away from them. If regulations were tightened to force the marketing term homeopathic to mean an individual dose contains less then 1 molecule of anything but a proven safe, listed carrier then they could start with VX for all I cared. One dose of 30X VX would be perfectly safe (assuming it was in fact 30x "potency") while as has been shown that a 10-1 dilution of zinc gluconate applied directly to the mucous membranes of the nose/sinus cavity is not. With concentrations varying by six HUNDRED orders of magnitude (keep in mind the difference between the size of a proton and the size of the observable universe is less then 45 orders of magnitude) the very idea of a useful label "homeopathic" goes out the window. This does not even start on the issues of adulterants and possibly unsafe carriers, which I'm sure someone else could bring up.
I hope the sup and sub tags work otherwise its 10^0, 100^-300, and 10^-1
Posted by: Ranson | June 17, 2009 7:53 AM
Two things:
First, junkie is conflating DESI drugs that were grandfathered into regulation with homeopathic products. Homeopathic products are, unfortunately, separately "regulated" by law. DESI drugs, however, have previously not had to show proof of efficacy; safety was the only concern. Recently, the FDA is cracking down on manufacturers of DESI drugs to show efficacy, like any other drug. If they can't, the products get pulled. This has happened repeatedly over the last few years, and looks to continue until there's no such thing as a DESI drug anymore. I wouldn't mind to see see Zicam turn into a "foot in the door" toward real regulation of homeopathy, given this trend.
Second, junkie said, "To hell with PhDs, it turns out you are no better, and equally confused, as my MD and Nurse Practitioner peers."
Here's a hint. When you're the one claiming everyone else is crazy or stupid, well, I have bad news...
Posted by: Kate | June 17, 2009 8:22 AM
@Alan Kellogg #136:
BTW, I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on tv. I was yelled at for playing doctor back in '57.
Ha! Best. Disclaimer. Ever.
Posted by: Chris Nowak | June 17, 2009 9:11 AM
I've used this stuff before. It's both miraculous and completely awful. It clears you up immediately - even when my entire sinuses are clogged and I can't even get the damn Netti pot to go through them. However, it's not worth it. The next night my sinus problems would always be worse...and they wouldn't go away until I went off it and suffered through a night, completely stuffed up. It's like an instant dependence...no wonder they say not to use the stuff for more than 3 nights in a row.
Posted by: Victor
|
June 17, 2009 9:17 AM
Yes, the dreaded "Homeopathic" label: license to fill bottles with pee and sell it as medicine to an ignorant public. But, at least it's not the scary "science" stuff; it's NATURAL!
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | June 17, 2009 9:17 AM
Looking at the ingredients ... depending on the product, it's 1X and 2X zinc something or other. Depending on the "mother tincture" they start with, it could be as high as 10% Zinc Chloride and still calling itself homeopathic.
Apparently they saw some research that indicates zinc slows the reproduction of virus particles in mucous membranes and concocted something from there, called it homeopathic and went on the market.
Posted by: Sleeper | June 17, 2009 9:21 AM
@Gorogh (#115) Don't know if you've seen this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.100-the-science-of-voodoo-when-mind-attacks-body.html
Posted by: Chris H | June 17, 2009 9:26 AM
I once visited VU University Amsterdam (known to be open to religious POVs, harbouring Pim 'endless consciousness' van Lommel and containing environmentalists thinking Lomborg is a hero) and noticed a letter in the university weekly; some medicine students claimed that homeopathy works because they had seen calendula ointment work. The producer (VSM) claims their Calendula and other oints are 'homeopathic' though it is dilutes 0 times. For legal reasons or to appeal to the masses, or both.
These students had not noticed the difference.
Posted by: Desert Rat | June 17, 2009 9:51 AM
What I find interesting about the whole thing is that homeopathic medicines can apparently be just made up with no testing. Looking into this I found that "zincum gluconicum" was added to the HPUS, the "official" list of homeopathic remedies, in 1997. I had thought the HPUS was grandfathered in based on the old remedies and not subject to change without testing, but apparently I was wrong. First off, why do they have to make up pretend names for things? Zincum Gluconicum?!? What the hell is that supposed to be? Why not call it by its real name, zinc gluconate. Zincum Gluconicum sounds like a Harry Potter spell for galvanizing iron. When people start making up pseudo-Latin babble names for common chemicals, you can pretty much be assured they're not in their right minds. Furthermore, there's no indication of what exactly is in the stuff, even once you "translate" the babble words. Zincum Gluconicum is fairly obviously zinc gluconate, but at what concentration? Sure, on the label of the product they put "Zincum Gluconicum 1X" or whatever, but what's the concentration of the starting material before they do the one in ten dilution? Is it 10% zinc gluconate? Or is it 10% of a standardized solution of some sort? If you don't have a copy of the HPUS on hand, you don't know, and I haven't been able to find an online copy of the HPUS what would explain what exactly the standard formulations are.
As someone pointed out up-thread, homeopathic remedies range over a huge degree of concentrations, which means that they can be anything from a dilute solution of something potentially effective (or toxic) to pretty much pure water. And, some of the things they use are undeniably toxic, at least in concentrated forms.
For example, a friend of mine is a big believer in homeopathic stuff and gave me a tube of some sort of sore muscle/joint pain ointment because I had a stiff shoulder. On the ingredient list is a dilute preparation of "Mercuius Solubilis": soluble mercury. I did the math, and, assuming the tiny amount of this very dilute preparation of mercury was 100% mercury by weight, the concentration in the ointment was still below EPA standards for the content of mercury in drinking water, but just what kind of mercury compound is it? Are we talking methylmercury? Mercury chloride? What exactly is it? Why would you put a horribly toxic heavy metal into an alleged medicine in the first place? I've done work with ROHS compliance in microelectronics and consumer product components and spent lots of time and money doing studies in which my scientists ground components, processed them with hot acid to simulate stomach contents, and analyzed the results based on known absorption and elimination of the metals to determine what sort of blood levels of heavy metals could result from the highly improbably even of someone prying a component out of a board, chewing it thoroughly despite it being made of ceramic, glass, and metal, and swallowing it. In the end, the CEO decided to eliminate all toxic heavy metals from our components, at a multi-million dollar cost to our manufacturing process, despite finding that someone would have to eat hundreds of such components in one sitting to put themselves at risk. We decided it was the right thing to do, that it was consistent with our corporate ideals, and that we should do it now before tightening regulations forced us to do it. So, when other industries are doing this sort of thing, what the hell is with homeopathic medicine companies gleefully adding heavy metals to their products at the sorts of levels we worked to eliminate. Our products aren't even intended to be eaten, in fact, they're nearly impossible to eat. Our scientists had to order new mills to pulverize the components after our first run of testing burned out the motors in the mills they had. You'd have to have jaws of steel to eat the damn things, and if they're not pulverized, there's no measurable heavy metal release. But, all the same, our CEO flatly stated that if there was even the remotest possibility that a lost or loose component could be eaten by a child and that this could result in life long neurological damage, he would not stand for it. So, we eliminated the hazardous compounds, going far above and beyond any existing or proposed regulations in Europe or the Americas, simply because it was the right thing to do.
With the lack of regulation of homeopathic preparations, what's to keep some nutjob from deciding that a 1X, rather than an 8X, "Mercurius Solubilis" preparation, in its pure state, is a great treatment for something? There's no standard! There's no regulation! These people are playing with potentially dangerous compounds, putting them into products intended for human consumption, and doing it with no independent oversight whatsoever. Furthermore, there isn't even decent information for the consumer. They couch the ingredients list in obfuscating terms of their own making and don't make the details of what these terms actually mean available to the public.
This alone is enough to label them, in my mind, as frauds, and that's not even getting into their ridiculous and totally unsubstantiated claims about how the whole principle works.
As we can see with the Zicam case, some homeopathic medications do contain effective levels of potentially effective ingredients, and yet they fly under the banner of "homeopathic" to avoid all safety testing. This is an outrage. I don't care whether X numbers of studies show zinc gluconate works against the common cold and Y studies show it's ineffective, or whatever. What concerns me right now is that there's a big gaping hole in our regulatory structure which allows companies to produce products intended as human medication which undergo no safety testing. Proving effectiveness can come later, right now they need to work on the most basic of medical principles: "primum non nocere".
Posted by: Gorogh | June 17, 2009 10:10 AM
@Sleeper (#147), thank you for your response. Yet this is not quite what I am looking for, as I already knew of the nocebo effect/assumen that it exists. You might want to take a look at my #123 where I rephrase my question somewhat - I am looking for a phenomenon which describes how disbelief in the curative/noxic qualities of an actually effective (i.e. not placebo/nocebo) treatment diminishes the outcome.
What I am heading for, might the disbelief of a person sceptic of traditional medicine not diminish treatment effects normally induced by traditional treatment? And, vice versa, might not a person undergoing a treatment with alleged side effect have the usual side effect diminished due to some psychological factor of disbelieving these side effects to operate on him/her?
Am I making any sense? These phenomena are not covered by the terms "placebo" or "nocebo", but rather inverse versions of the two.
Posted by: Gorogh | June 17, 2009 10:13 AM
"assume", not "assumen". There might be no such thing as assumen, even though Google suggests otherwise.
Posted by: Tigerwolf | June 17, 2009 10:19 AM
Hello! Long-time lurker, first-time poster. And I would like to offer this comment parodying the delightful Mr. Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd:
"What is this,
Smells like piss…
This is piss,
Piss with zinc!"
^..^
Posted by: AdamK | June 17, 2009 10:58 AM
Dr. Novella has a good post up about this at
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=530#more-530
Posted by: Sleeper | June 17, 2009 10:59 AM
@Gorogh (#150) Ah well, I took a stab. :)
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 17, 2009 11:06 AM
I suppose losing your sense of smell would be helpful if you were a garbage man or worked in the sewers of a large metropolitan area. Or if your spouse farted a lot! But then, where's the enjoyment of the smell of a big thick juicy steak! Mmmmmmmm!!!! (Note: I am not writing this because I have two T-bones in my refrigerator calling to me.)
Posted by: Brock | June 17, 2009 11:07 AM
Ha! My mom is a pharmacy tech, and at one point she advised me to try this Zicam crap. I took one look at the word "homeopathic" on the label and laughed, then sent her a big article debunking the whole big first issue of Homeopathy magazine.
I may have to send her more materials now, like the Bad Astronomy post on homeopathy kills and the Neuroligica coverage of the history and scientific status.
Posted by: Endor | June 17, 2009 11:15 AM
Sooo, the the pharyngulite collective opinion, what should one take to minimize the symptoms and length of a cold?
Perhaps a better question is, is there anything that actually does this without scary side effects?
Posted by: Rod | June 17, 2009 11:18 AM
I am really surprised at the lack of objectivity shown by some posters here in regards to Junkscience's posts. I am a physician now in academia and I am as opposed to all the woo heisted on the public as anyone. I have always been skeptical of the studies on zinc treatments, mainly because of the subjective nature of the patient reports. You do enough of them and sooner or later one will show a benefit. That is beside the point, though, when it comes to the point Junkscience was trying to make about the scientific question. Do zinc users get anosmia at a higher rate than non zinc users? (More interesting would be whether the pathologies are the same.) You cannot go by your impressions of how rare the problem is to make your case. You need good data to detect or rule out causation. Otherwise you're in the mercury/autism type debate, except without any data to back up either side. Can zinc/mercury cause nerve damage? Sure. Does that in itself prove the claims for patient injury? No.
The real issue is that this type of stuff can get on the market before clinical trials give us the answers. Are these customer complaints of anosmia worrisome? Of course...and some might even say predictable...but just because of our prejudices we need to guard against unscientific claims on our part. Anybody remember the silicon implant hysteria?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 17, 2009 11:41 AM
Rod, there is also the concept that anything sold OTC should not be permanently damaging when self administered following the instructions on the label. And there should be sufficient room for error, since a lot of people think one is good, two is better. That is why the safety data is more important than than efficacy when FDA is reviewing a drug to go OTC (usually the efficacy was proven with the NDA approval). Even the small scale studies run noted that zinc effected the sense of smell, just as posters above mentioned it effected their sense of taste. That alone would send up the red flag for OTC consideration.
JunkScience was trying to present his version of junk science which he thought was good science. It was also obvious he had not read the clinical studies, but just found them with a search. For that, he deserves to be taken to task.
Posted by: Matt M | June 17, 2009 11:44 AM
Perhaps you would be interested in a little homeopathic plutonium.
Posted by: Optimus Primate | June 17, 2009 11:52 AM
junkScience #86 said:
OMG, y'all. He said "QED." I'm pretty sure that means we have to let him win!
Posted by: John Sherman | June 17, 2009 11:55 AM
I've been given to understand that there is one condition that homeopathic products DO help with. Dehydration!
Posted by: Pete D | June 17, 2009 12:00 PM
I'm not a doctor...but my wife is (IM/Peds)!
Well junkscience might just be full of shit or he might not be looking hard enough. If junk would search UptoDate Online (something junk might subscribe to if junk is a doctor), then he would find a review of the relevant references that shows the common cold is not indicated as a cause of anosmia, although other viral infections are.
Example:
An epidemiological study of postviral olfactory disorder.
Sugiura M; Aiba T; Mori J; Nakai Y
Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1998;538:191-6.
Junk would also find that of the 1000 consecutive cases in the UCSD study, those with postviral diagnoses were most likely to suffer from symptoms of parosmia (not anosmia) and fared best out of all the cases studied.
Junk would also find this from UCSD:
Intranasal zinc and anosmia: the zinc-induced anosmia syndrome.
AU Alexander TH; Davidson TM
SO Laryngoscope. 2006 Feb;116(2):217-20.
OBJECTIVE: Commercial preparations of intranasal zinc gluconate gel are marketed as a remedy for the common cold. However, intranasal zinc has been reported as a cause of anosmia in humans and animals. Seventeen patients presenting with anosmia after the use of intranasal zinc gluconate are described. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective case series of patients presenting to a nasal dysfunction clinic and conducted complete history and physical examination on all patients, including nasal endoscopy. All patients underwent detailed odor threshold and identification testing. RESULTS: Threshold and identification testing revealed impaired olfaction in all patients. Inflammatory and traumatic causes of anosmia were excluded based on history, physical examination, and imaging. All patients diagnosed with zinc-induced anosmia or hyposmia reported sniffing deeply when applying the gel. This was followed by an immediate sensation of burning lasting minutes to hours. Loss of sense of smell was then perceived within 48 hours. Seven of 17 patients never developed symptoms of an upper respiratory infection. CONCLUSIONS: The zinc-induced anosmia syndrome, characterized by squirt, sniff, burn, and anosmia, occurs after the exposure of olfactory epithelium to zinc cation. It can be distinguished from postviral anosmia based on history.
Yeah, 2006.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 17, 2009 12:04 PM
Sooo, the the pharyngulite collective opinion, what should one take to minimize the symptoms and length of a cold?
Cyanide. Works every time.
Posted by: Andrew Campbell | June 17, 2009 12:38 PM
Rush Limbaugh shills this stuff all the time. So anyone who bought it on his recomendation and loses their sense of smell, should get no sympathy.
Posted by: Virgil | June 17, 2009 12:52 PM
@JunkScience...
The randomized placebo controlled study you speak of (http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/35) has some major issues in study design:
1) It is a bit small (just about enough power to show statistical significance).
2) It was funded by the company that makes Zicam (GelTech, now Matrixx). No conflict of interest was declared, but here's an odd observation for you... Matrixx/GelTech doesn't have a list of its Scientific Advisory Board on its website. Just about every other pharma company on the planet does list this information. Why not Matrixx? What's the betting that the lead author (Mossad) is on the S.A.B.?
3) The blindedness of the study is questionable. Apparently the tratement groups for each patient were not disclosed to the people analysing the charts until AFTER enrollment was completed, but this implies the people analysing the charts did know which patient received zicam or placebo.
So, there's the SCIENCE. Now go back to your hole!
Posted by: Rod | June 17, 2009 12:55 PM
Nerd,
You are right that this product should have never made it to the market based on prior evidence of anosmia...and thanks, Pete, for evidence I was not aware of. And in this case, as well, ANY evidence of harm, before or after market, needs to be taken seriously because of such a high risk to benefit ratio. We're talking about colds here, not Ebola, after all.
Perhaps my previous post applies less in this case and should just be taken as a philosophical point about jumping the gun on assuming causation...something we are not immune to.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 17, 2009 1:06 PM
I think Junkie gave himself away at the very beginning of his first post:
Sounds like a major stockholder to me.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 17, 2009 1:11 PM
"Posted by: Jason | June 17, 2009 12:01 AM
Maybe I just completely missed it, but have there been no posts on this blog about Iran?
I would think a democratic revolution in the world's largest Theocracy might be worthy of comment!"
It is best to reserve opinion from USA until the Iranians resolve this. Senator McCain should stifle it.
By the way, FiveThirtyEight has been analyzing the election.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/if-he-did-it.html
If you are not familiar with Nate Silver, take a look at his FAQ:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 17, 2009 1:11 PM
For me, personally, I just drink a lot of OJ, and stay home watching Firefly and Futurama DVDs. I always feel much better after about a week.Posted by: Tigerwolf | June 17, 2009 1:22 PM
Rush Limbaugh shills this stuff all the time.
Proof that Zicam causes brain damage, too!
^..^
Posted by: not a gator | June 17, 2009 1:30 PM
IANAD, but... (yeah, lol) my understanding is that runny nose is one of the signs of a Zinc deficiency. "Clouds" in your fingernails are a sign of Zinc deficiency, and I used to have both a lot growing up (but not as an adult, and my diet has changed, so I guess that's something).
So, if the above is true, then taking a Zinc supplement or adding Zinc-rich foods to your diet could mitigate the runny nose. However, if so, this is NOT a runny nose caused by a cold. Essentially, from what I understand, there is no evidence that Zinc does anything about a rhinovirus.
Also, I was very interested to read last month that an adequate night's sleep will make cold symptoms go away. (However, despite popular belief, you are still in fact infected ... just a lot more comfortably.) A nice shower, spicy food, a hot pack on your sinuses, a night cap, and a quiet, dark room for 8-9 hours might be all you need. Of course, Americans think there is something morally wrong with you if you get 9 hours of sleep, instead of an honest 5, like Henry Ford intended.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2009 1:33 PM
I'm amazed that so many people are still focusing on the Zinc works / Zinc doesn't work issue when the real issue is lack of regulation and testing.
Zinc could be the greatest thing in the world for a cold and if that is the case fucking test and regulate them to at least the existing standards for medicine. At least then we are putting a modicum of safety measures in the mix.
Remember Metabolife with ephedra from a few years back and the lobbying from the supplement industry to block regulation (in part thanks to Orin Hatch and his son who worked for a lobbiest representing the supplement industry)? The FDA had the gall to require labeling in 1997 and then ban it's use in 2004.
14,000 or so odd complaints to the company about adverse and sometimes serious side effects of its use. Metabolife had never submitted these to the FDA. Further review found significant numbers of deaths. Metabolife only turned over their reports of adverse effects by court order (not surprisingly) which revealed they knew of deaths and other serious adverse effects linked to use of their product. Sure we can trust the company has everyone's health in their best interest.
Yes ephreda was helpful as an ingredient in a diet pill, but at what cost?
Regulation and increased consumer safety, that is the fucking point.
/rant
Posted by: Pete D | June 17, 2009 1:49 PM
RBDC is right. This is a matter of regulation. It is wholly disingenuous (and dangerous!) to allow the sale of products for the implicit purpose of preventing, treating, and curing all sorts of things without proof of safety or efficacy. Labels stating that they aren't meant to do what the advertisers are clearly suggesting they do are so obviously inadequate. Likewise, labels listing ingredients that may or may not be present are a farce. Mandate the testing for fuck's sake.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 2:13 PM
How about this: A sound mind may cause the loss of all religious nonsense. Nothing homeopathic about that, but just a natural state from the start.
Posted by: da lurker | June 17, 2009 2:19 PM
Zicam is a sponsor of Rush Limbaugh. You KNOW it will work like it says it will.
Posted by: da lurker
|
June 17, 2009 2:22 PM
Zicam is a sponsor of Rush Limbaugh. You KNOW it will work like it says it will.
Posted by: Notagod | June 17, 2009 2:54 PM
Just a small example of why Republican and Libertarian none regulation of business doesn't and never will work.
Posted by: Master Mahan | June 17, 2009 3:25 PM
Zicam is a sponsor of Rush Limbaugh. You KNOW it will work like it says it will.
Rush Limbaugh? That guy will put anything up his nose.
This is a fine example of what a gaping loophole homeopathy is in our public safety net. Hemlock is an herb, and you can as Socrates how healthy that was.
Posted by: Will | June 17, 2009 3:57 PM
Kate, my friends from the olfactory neuron regeneration lab next door explained to me that olfactory neurons (the cells that actually detect odors) are vulnerable to damage by their exposure to the air, so lost neurons are continually replaced by new cells that develop from a stem-cell-like population of precursor cells in the olfactory epithelium. Zinc kills these precursor cells, and once they are gone -- no more olfactory neurons, so no more sense of smell.
I read that in the 1930s people did this on purpose to try to prevent polio infection in children. The reasoning was that killing the olfactory neurons (which project direct to the brain) would deprive the polio virus of its pathway to the rest of the CNS. Many of the kids treated with zinc in these studies permanently lost their sense of smell. The makers of Zicam probably should have known better.
Posted by: The Other Ian | June 17, 2009 4:37 PM
At the first sign of a cold of any kind, I do nothing whatsoever. It almost never develops into an actual cold. It is just gone the next day.
Posted by: njkayaker | June 17, 2009 4:51 PM
#23 [quote]Then there's that pesky placebo effect! Apparently the confusion wasn't ironed out the last thread. People given pills and *told* they were being given medicine got better than those who weren't. That makes it harder to know "what really works."[/quote]
"What really works" is what statistically works better than the placebo in a double blind test. Put another way, a putative medicine is just a placebo if it works no better than a placebo!
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 17, 2009 7:47 PM
FYI, Cold-Eeze's nasal spray/gel was discontinued for the EXACT SAME REASON a while ago: homeopathic, zinc-containing nasally-administered 'cold remedy' leading to many, many reports of anosmia, sore throats, nasal lesions, etc.
Posted by: Peter | June 17, 2009 7:55 PM
Good. I've been trying to get my Dad to stop using that garbage for years. He swore by it because "Paul Harvey said it was good on his show". Let's hope the company goes under and that this finally gets people talking about homeopathy and what dangerous nonsense it is.
Posted by: astrounit | June 18, 2009 8:40 AM
Evidently homeopaths and science do not zinc alike.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 8:58 AM
Yikes! No offense to your Dad, but Paul Harvey is at the bottom of the list of people I'd ever take advice from.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 18, 2009 9:12 AM
Huh??
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 18, 2009 9:37 AM
*Keyboard thanks FSM for not having typist drinking coffee while reading Astrounit #185.*
Posted by: Cynthia | June 18, 2009 10:27 PM
I just found this interesting site about health problems and the loss of taste and smell from which some Zicam users have suffered. There is also important safety information here:
http://www.zicam-smell-loss-lawyer.com/
Posted by: Rorschach | June 20, 2009 10:09 PM
Of course,you could always try this medicine !
Posted by: Vinifera7
|
June 21, 2009 12:25 PM
If you look at the ingredients for Zicam, it will indicate something to the effect of "Zincum Gluconicum 2X", meaning that for every 100 parts water, there is 1 part zinc. This is a relatively high concentration for homeopathic products, but it still doesn't indicate a specific amount of zinc being administered. Furthermore, since it IS a homeopathic remedy, the FDA regulations are more lax.
Posted by: Styla | June 22, 2009 7:48 AM
In my modest attempt with homeopathic products,I do know now,that is not important the products as products,important is them revival,and this revival is dependent of the low of attraction,and similarity.Everybody who has a idea of homeopathy, knows,that this low is basic in the classical homeopathic medicine.The diagnoses of needed product are important ,and then only holographic present,or picture in bottle pure water of the needed product is enough to make miracles.Zinc,or arsenic,poison,or stones,metals,or cold ,everything works. But the big,big problem is a diagnoses....The salt is very powerful homeopathic product.I have a proof for that.I like this holistic medicine,it has been helpful to me on very different way.........
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 3:23 AM
Wow, Styla. You make a compelling case for this low, and it's helpful to know everything works when it's in pure water.
I have just one teensy-weensy worry — have you noticed any side-effects?