Drug store homeopathy, part 2: Homeocoksinum

The second installment in my series investigating homeopathic remedies being sold by my local London Drugs. A reminder: these products are not sold in a "homeopathic" section but are mixed in amongst conventional products, often with little to differentiate them in the eyes of the average consumer.

Product #2: Homeocoksinum flu buster

Nine doses of "flu buster" selling for ten dollars. Is it worth it?

Who makes it?
Homeocoksinum is made by Homeocan Inc., the Montreal-based brainchild of one Michele Biosvert. As well as being the president and founder of Homeocan, Biosvert also owns homeopathic manufacturer and distributor Homeolab USA Inc., essential and fragrance oil distributor Wide World of Oils Ltd., and nutritional supplement company Nature Beaute Sante Inc.  In 2012 Biosvert won the RBC Canadian Women Entrepreneur "Trailblazer" award for helping to spearhead the Canadian homeopathic industry (I recommend checking out  this short autobiographical video made in honor of this event).

Michele Biosvert

What is it for?
Homeocoksinum is not marketed as a cure for the cold and flu, but as a symptom reliever - like expensive and far less tasty chicken noodle soup. Indeed, in this short article about Homeocoksinum, Biosvert cites research that she says "has shown what mothers have known for centuries - that chicken soup is good for a cold". Homeocoksinum, Biosvert then suggests, is merely "a unique way to take your soup".

The significance of this will become clear in a moment, but it is worth taking a second to look into this claim that research has shown chicken soup to be good for a cold. Is this true?

The short answer is: no.

The long answer is: no, it's not true.

The research Biosvert is talking about (click here to view the study) in no way showed "that chicken soup is good for a cold". It did show that the soup broth inhibited the movement of neutrophils (aka white blood cells: cells that help defend the body from infection) when mixed with blood samples. And the authors did speculate that this could possibly translate into cold/flu symptom reduction in living, flu-afflicted people. However, they were also careful to point out that

"Whether clinical benefits would be obtained from chicken soup . . . remains untested."

What is in it?
The reason Biosvert seeks to sell us on chicken noodle soup is because the active ingredient in Homeocoksinum is "anas barbariae hepatis et cordis" - fancy talk for "heart and liver extract of Muscovy duck". Homeocoksinum, exclaims Biosvert, "is 'duck soup'!"

The full chain of logic we are supposed to follow thus presents itself:

1. chicken soup helps with a cold/flu
2. ducks are similar to chickens
3. Homeocoksinum contains duck extract
4. thus, Homeocoksinum helps with a cold/flu.

Can you see the weak link in this reasoning? It's all of them. Not only has chicken soup not been shown to help with a cold/flu, but even if it had been, it wouldn't necessarily follow that duck soup would help, too. Let alone extract of a duck's heart and liver.

But I've saved the best part for last. According to the package, the duck extract in Homeocoksinum is so diluted that the chance of the above-pictured package containing even a single molecule of  it is almost zero. Let me explain: the package says that it is diluted to "200C", which means that Homeocan took a drop of duck extract and diluted it into 99 drops of water. Then, they diluted this again into another 99 drops of water. And again. And again... In fact, they repeated this step 200 times. In other words: Homeocoksinum effectively does not contain any duck extract - its alleged "active ingredient" - at all. 

And the only other listed ingredients it contains? Sucrose and lactose - also known as "sugar". But I guess "sugar soup" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Final thoughts
If this sounds insane to you, that's because it is.

However, perhaps one could argue that Biosvert is simply selling a placebo. After all, if there's one thing placebos can do it's make people feel better, and that's really all she's claiming this product does, anyway. What's the problem with that?

The problem, to my mind, is that Biosvert is not marketing Homeocoksinum as a placebo but as real, inherently effective medicine. Her "chicken soup" pitch makes this clear. Other indications of this are that she bills herself as a "pharmacist" rather than a "homeopath"; and that Homeocoksinum is loudly touted as having "no known side effects" and yet it also warns consumers: "do not exceed recommended dosage" (I suspect this indicates an attempt to provide a side effect-free alternative to real medicine while also making it seem like there is an ideal dosage of Homeocoksinum - just like real medicine). And using blatant dishonesty to take people's money is, in my book, a problem.

Indeed, some might go so far as to call that the very definition of the word "scam".

Drug store homeopathy, part 1: Orajel teething gel

Many people appear to assume that "homeopathic" simply denotes a medicine that contains natural ingredients. Many people see it as a welcome alternative to conventional "Western" medicine: something that is made by small businesses; something natural, safe, and with no risk of side effects. To others like myself, however, it represents something very different: a corporate scam, and an extremely profitable one.

This post is the first in a series that will briefly examine various homeopathic products that are being sold by my neighborhood London Drugs. These products are mixed in with the conventional cough syrups, pain killers, and other non-prescription medicines, often with few features that would distinguish them in the eyes of hurried or unwary customers. I will be asking who these products are made by, what they are for, and what is in them (and how much). It is my hope that doing so will convince others to avoid wasting their hard-earned money on homeopathic products.

Product #1: Orajel homeopathic teething gel 

Two similar products, made by the same manufacturer.  One is homeopathic,
the other is not. One is 60% more expensive than the other. Why?

Carbon offsets

In late 2011 I took my first journalism class. I was assigned to the "local government" beat, and required to dig up and write stories that concerned municipal or city governments. While digging, a press release caught my eye. It announced that the Municipality of Whistler had recently attained "carbon neutrality" - meaning that its carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010 amounted to a net of zero.

Intrigued, I wondered how that was possible.

The answer, it turned out, was that Whistler had purchased carbon offsets. In principle, that means they paid someone else to pollute less, or to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Buy enough carbon offsets, and you can claim that you haven't contributed to global warming (or ocean acidification): in other words, you can claim to be "carbon neutral". In this case, Whistler owed it's carbon neutrality to a company called Offsetters, to which it had given $57,271 to invest in "offset projects" on the municipality's behalf. According to the press release, one of these projects was a wind farm located in Turkey, and the other was a "green" greenhouse located in Aldergrove, BC.

At the time, I had only the foggiest idea what carbon offsets were or how they worked; but something didn't seem right to me. I sensed that somewhere in this announcement lurked a story. My first grand adventure in investigative journalism had begun.

Light at night

Many people are convinced that cell phones, Wi-Fi networks, or smart meters negatively affect our health. Stories revolving around these popular fears make regular appearances in the news: just recently a confederation of parents voted against the use of Wi-Fi networks in BC public schools due to concerns about their effects on children; a grandmother walked across southern Ontario to raise "awareness" about "the danger of cellphone tower emissions"; and a group that calls itself Citizens for Safe Technology lost a court case aimed at halting the installation of smart meters in BC homes. However, while these fears might, one day, turn out to be well-founded, I am currently unaware of any evidence that these radio waves constitute a public health issue.

In contrast, I don't know anybody who is concerned about the health effects of chronic exposure to light at night (LAN). And yet it may surprise you to learn that there actually is good evidence that bright nocturnal light could be negatively affecting your health. And I don't mean anything so banal as "it strains your eyes": I mean that LAN exposure has been linked to serious conditions, such as depression, obesity, and cancer.

But if that's true, why are people more concerned about radio waves than they are about visible light?

The full moon (revisited)

(This post is a rebooted version of an entry I made in November, 2009.)

Many are those who believe that the full moon profoundly affects us mentally and/or physically. And why shouldn't they? During full moons the tides are especially strong, wolves are said to be especially howly, and many police officers and nurses will swear they are busier. Gardeners claim they get better results when they take lunar cycles into account. And it's conventional wisdom that the moon regulates menstruation. So it makes perfect intuitive sense that the full moon has a significant impact on our bodies and behavior - in fact, surely it's lunacy to even think of suggesting that the full moon has no significant impact on us whatsoever.

Following, I suggest that the full moon has no significant impact on us whatsoever.

Mini Meme: The shopping mall psychics

Fortune-telling being offered in the Bay Center, my local shopping mall.

I've always figured I do pretty well as a tree planter. It's an incredibly tough job (constant physical exertion; brutal weather conditions; exposure to fertilizers and pesticides; nonstop mosquito and blackfly assaults; and wild animals - including some non-human ones) but hey, I can make over $60 an hour if I work hard! How else could I make that much?

Well now I know: by sitting on my ass in a mosquito- and bear-free shopping mall, scamming people out of their hard-earned cash by "reading" palms and tarot cards and acting like I have ESP ("extrasensory perception"), that's how. In fact, I could make over twice as much doing that. And all I need to start is someone to help me practice, since I think I just obliterated my own palms by repeatedly smashing them into my forehead.

Mini Meme: The immune system cookies

The future is here. And here in this world of tomorrow cookies are super good for you. I mean, some of them are even "organic!" - which is clearly relevant health information when you're talking about cookies; many are "fat-free!" - which is really great once you set aside the fact that our bodies are perfectly capable of making their own fat out of sugar; others are "gluten-free!" - which matters if you happen to be one of the less than 1% of people who suffers from celiac disease.

But even these grounds for boundless optimism didn't prepare me for the sight of the above-pictured Praeventia ginger cookies and the claim that eating them "activates key immune cells" in your body. "Gee whiz!" I exclaimed, dropping my groceries on the floor. "Is there anything they can't do?"

And that's when I did my research.

The Age of Misinformation

Why Facebook and Twitter cost us more than just our privacy, and what you can do about it.

"The most dangerous person to get an email from is your mother," said Howard Schneider, founding dean of Stony Brook University's School of Journalism. But before I can apologize on my mother's behalf, he explains that he's speaking metaphorically: what he really means is "people you trust".

"I get emails all the time from friends and they drive me crazy," he told me in his heavy New York accent. "They'll ask me to sign a petition or do something, and with two clicks I can find out that the information is not reliable, the claims are not valid. And I'll send them back a note saying: what are you doing? why are you sending this around?"

I empathize with Schneider's frustration. You see, I too have a habit of pointing out when my friends are wrong, and if you think they find this quality endearing... well, you're wrong. I've been called an "accomplished hater", a "nit-picky faux intellectual", and a "devil's advocate" by people I know and respect; I've been accused of practicing a "hey-mom-look-at-me" style of journalism. It has been said that criticism is an indirect form of self-boasting, and I often worry that this appears to be my intent. It's refreshing to know that Schneider, co-creator of America's first News Literacy program, actually approves of my behavior, and even sticks his own neck out. It's refreshing to have him remind me that, in the age of Facebook and Twitter, pointing out to people when they're wrong is important - especially if they're a friend.

Schneider, seen here in conversation
with Arianna Huffington

I don't hear this nearly enough. Usually, when I hear the societal value of social networking sites discussed, the focus is on their role in the perennial struggle between people and power structures: on the one hand, we have the media hailing the "Twitter Revolution" in Tunisia and the "Facebook Revolution" in Iran; on the other hand, we have Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, calling Facebook "the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented." But Schneider's enthusiasm for the great democratizing power of social networks is tempered by a different concern. Scneider is worried about the harm these sites can inflict, not in the hands of authority, but of ordinary people.

"To the extent they can provide a tsunami of misinformation, rumors, half-truths, and assertions," he frets, "their potential to do damage is great, and we see that every day."

Nuclear power

Energy in North America (and the world) is overwhelmingly derived from fossil fuels. But the combustion of oil, coal, and natural gas is exacting a terrible toll: heating the planet and melting the polar ice caps; acidifying the oceans; and releasing particulate air pollution that, by one estimate, kills 50,000 -100,000 people every year in America alone. Clearly, we need alternatives.

One alternative is nuclear fission. In fact, already this low-carbon method of energy generation accounts for about 14% of the world's electricity; 15% in Canada, 20% in the US, and in certain countries the percentage is much higher.

But large swaths of the voting public are dead-set against nuclear power generation, and believe that not only should no new reactors be built, but that existing ones should be brought offline as soon as possible. Many people, it seems, are willing to accept nothing less than a nuclear-free, low-carbon near future; and presumably they believe this to be a realistic goal.

Here's why I am not one of these people.

Local food

For the purposes of this post I have imported a news story I recently wrote as an assignment for a journalism class, and chased it with a piece of fresh, homegrown editorializing.