I think some people in this thread are saying there are 3 categories, not 2.
Every medicine/supplement/remedy makes 3 claims:
1. Features ('What' it is - ingredient identity, potency, purity, quality)
2. Advantages ('How' it works and how it is different - the 'mechanism of action')
3. Benefits ('Why' the consumer cares - pain avoiders and gain creators)
So, there are 3 distinct categories:
1. regulated Pharmaceuticals should have good evidence for Features, Advantages, and Benefits
2. Unregulated 'Nutraceuticals/dietary supplements' often have good evidence for Features and Advantages, that is they have SOME mechanism of action that does something, but sometimes they fail to deliver on Benefits (especially big marketing claims).
3. Homeopathic remedies and similar do not deliver on Advantages or Benefits. Sometimes they don't even deliver on Features (they have different ingredients than what they claim). These do not have a mechanism of action that makes any sense whatsoever. You couldn't even run a good Randomized double blind placebo controlled study if you wanted to because the proposed mechanism makes almost zero sense.
'pharmaceuticals' and 'nutraceuticals/dietary supplements' can both have legitimate mechanism of actions for them with good studies. Fish oil, Creatine, Protein Powder, and similar supplements all have very well-studied mechanisms of action (Advantages) for the benefits they provide.
I understand that there are tons of scammy supplements, but they need to be treated differently than homeopathic remedies by consumers. One should be taken seriously, but treated skeptically, and the other should be dismissed from first principles.
Agreed. An example of 2 is colchicine, thought to be the oldest drug still in use. It's an ancient Greek flower remedy, and the standard treatment for gout flares. It has long been known to be very effective, and also toxic. It was only in the past couple of decades that a formal trial was done in the USA, based on some legislation which gave the company a monopoly on the drug - which is now fantastically expensive in the USA. Elsewhere it costs pennies.
Every medicine/supplement/remedy makes 3 claims:
1. Features ('What' it is - ingredient identity, potency, purity, quality) 2. Advantages ('How' it works and how it is different - the 'mechanism of action') 3. Benefits ('Why' the consumer cares - pain avoiders and gain creators)
So, there are 3 distinct categories:
1. regulated Pharmaceuticals should have good evidence for Features, Advantages, and Benefits
2. Unregulated 'Nutraceuticals/dietary supplements' often have good evidence for Features and Advantages, that is they have SOME mechanism of action that does something, but sometimes they fail to deliver on Benefits (especially big marketing claims).
3. Homeopathic remedies and similar do not deliver on Advantages or Benefits. Sometimes they don't even deliver on Features (they have different ingredients than what they claim). These do not have a mechanism of action that makes any sense whatsoever. You couldn't even run a good Randomized double blind placebo controlled study if you wanted to because the proposed mechanism makes almost zero sense.
'pharmaceuticals' and 'nutraceuticals/dietary supplements' can both have legitimate mechanism of actions for them with good studies. Fish oil, Creatine, Protein Powder, and similar supplements all have very well-studied mechanisms of action (Advantages) for the benefits they provide.
I understand that there are tons of scammy supplements, but they need to be treated differently than homeopathic remedies by consumers. One should be taken seriously, but treated skeptically, and the other should be dismissed from first principles.