There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Airborne
Isn't this product very similar to Emergen-C? Their product seems to contain pretty much the same ingredients and their website also prominently displays the quack miranda warning.
Would it be missional to have an article about it as well? Or is listing prominent homeopathic remedies simply too tedious? B4Xiphos (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- To some extent. Emergen-C is a lot older though. Also neither are homeopathic. Don't confuse homeopathy with any/all herbs/supplements. Homeopathy is a very distinct thing. --Ymir (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I did realize after I posted that since it is not essentially water with a few parts per million of whatever mixed in it that they are not homeopathic they are just BS herbal remedies that don't work. They do seem to get the same benefit that homeopathic junk has from a legal standpoint, but I suppose that is a different issue entirely. I do find it bothersome that you can pretty much sell anything as long as it isn't overtly poisonous as long as you have the quack miranda on there...
On a not entirely unrelated note, cosmetics and personal hygiene products can pretty much get away with putting whatever they want insofar as ingredients. They are not held to nearly as high of a standard as food or real medicinal products.B4Xiphos (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)