Talk:HeadOn

Active Ingredient Percentages: What does HPUS mean?

There are only two references in wikipedia to HPUS as a measurement unit: this article, and Oscillococcinum, neither of which explains what this unit actually is. Either this is a useful enough term to merit an article of its own, or the units in the article should be converted to something actually useful.

Additionally, the article seems to contradict itself: one portion says that white bryony occurs at a concentration of 10^-6 ppm (10^-12), which is 0.0000000001%; later the ingredients for the extra strength indicates that white bryony is 0.05%. Unless there is an eight order of magnitude (!) increase between the regular and extra strength versions, this cannot possibly be correct.

Or perhaps it contains 0.05% of "12X HPUS", which brings us back to the problem that HPUS has not been explained as a unit (not to mention unnecessarily mixing two different units that measure the same property).

I will look up what this 'HPUS' means and convert these percentages back into something useful. 67.171.73.4 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so 12X dilution means just *10^-12, and 6X means *10^-6. So the 'Potassium dichromate 6X H.P.U.S. 0.05%' is really 0.00000005% potassium dichromate, and 'White Bryony 12X H.P.U.S. 0.04%' is really 0.00000000000004% White Bryony. As currently listed, the ingredients are clearly deceptive, and so I will convert them to standard percentages, rather than percentages of dilutions.

67.171.73.4 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If the amount of GoldenSeal Hydrastis is really 8 × 10⁻³²%, that would mean by mass the mass of active ingredient as about the same as the mass of one electron in 14kg of the product, or 1 hydrogen atom in 750,000 kg. The chance of getting just one molecule of this stuff in a tube of HeadOn Extra Strength Sinus Headache Relief is probably close to your odds of winning the lottery. That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Matt13 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the weird world of homeopathy, where more dilute formulations are more powerful. Zetawoof_(ζ) —Preceding comment was added at 06:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias in this article

90% of this actual article seems rather unencyclopedic, and rather more like opinion. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove or disprove, or cast any judgment whatsoever on homeopathy as a medicinal philosophy. This article should be edited to indicate only what HeadOn is, what's in it, and what it purports to do. For example, why not stop after the list of ingredients? Why go on to opine that "this means it does nothing"? That kind opinion has no place on this website. -M

If you reread the article, you will see it has a series of facts stated in it. Facts of what has happened on the commercial and its history. Even if you think a certain current event that holds a bit of opinionated views behind it should not be in an encyclopedia, then you might want to find out what the word encyclopedia means. [unsigned]

Agree. This is a good example of how WP's NPOV policy is misunderstood and misused. Wikipedia should not only report the fact that there is clear evidence that this product is a fraud, but that fact should be in the opening line. It is not biased to say that a fake medicinal product is sham. Of course, that sort of statement must have good sources clearly cited, but it is entirely appropriate. This article should treat its subject like pyramid scheme and Ponzi scheme. --Tysto 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Composition

Is it true that it's made of wax according to the article? Or is this vandalism someone missed? DanPMK 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism. It's almost all wax. One of the main active ingredients is a coloring agent used in wood varnish, but the stick is completely clear. That should give you some idea as to what a joke this stuff is. ~Nec

The description says it's homeopathic. As a result, the amount of medicine is on the subatomic level. Homeopathists argue that it works, although most science is skeptical. Considering that it's based soundly on homeopathy (even if the soundness of homeopathy is questioned), it's not a "joke" so much as it's simply a homeopathic treatment. FunnyYetTasty 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How is 'homeopathic treatment' not a joke? Jredwards 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is always the placebo effect. :P You'd be surprised how much emotional states and the like directly affect health, especially on minor things (like headaches). 4.238.21.144 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if it is a placebo affect it would be easy to identify with the following experiment. One stick of Headon and one round stick of wax. Wait for a headache and then ask someone to randomly apply a stick to your forehead. Have them record which one. Log the affects or lack of affects. Of course headon has a distinct smell so you better have a nose plug. Do this to a random sample. Of course there will be a measurable placebo affect but for those who have experience with headon they will instantly recognize whether it relieves headache pain. --66.223.168.45 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Denzika 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The active ingredient discussion in the intro seems (i) too suggestive of author opinion and (ii) unnecessary/superfluous since there's an active ingredient discussion below. Plus, the last line "...divide that by 100." adds nothing to the article except more author sentiment that is immaterial to the discussion of the product. ~ Scruffymmh 03:58, Tuesday, Oct. 23(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.31.249 (talk)

"intended for headache relief" ?

As of revision 79916100 the introduction states that this product is "intended for headache relief". However, it then goes on to say that the "intended uses are not listed on the website or in the commercial spot". On what basis are we saying that this is intended for headaches? (On the product itself perhaps?) --Billpg 19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the first cite (the Slate article) states: "(That is, the product does exist. I'm not sure I can use the word "real" in any reference to a topical homeopathic health remedy.) HeadOn is meant to treat headaches and is a gel suffused with various plant extracts that you apply—say it with me—directly to the forehead." As the Slate cite comes right after the sentence with the phrase "intended for headache relief" in it, I think it is cited. --Darkdan 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be just Slate's interpretation of what the product is for, and he doesn't state how he came to this conclusion either. Have the maker's of HeadOn ever said "This will relieve headaches" and if so, do they still stand by this statement? --Billpg 21:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about the fourth reference which states "The new campaign was spawned by the unintentional help of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, whose National Advertising Division challenged a claim in an earlier spot that HeadOn provided "fast, safe, effective" headache relief." --Darkdan 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if Miralus isn't legally allowed to state that it's intended for headache relief, that is clearly what they intend you to use it for. Wikipedia isn't selling HeadOn, so we aren't bound by advertising laws. Leaving that information in the article makes it more informative, which is what Wikipedia is all about. Foobaz·o< 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"active ingredients"

The words active ingredients should not be placed in quotes, as they usually imply sarcasm or irony on behalf of the editor. Whether they truly work may be up for debate, but opinions should be left out of the article. Prometheus^-X303- 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. See also scare quotes.

But the ingredients are indeed not capable of being considered scientifically "active," thus making "active ingredients" a claim of the manufacturer and not factual information. In the quantities provided, one could also consider the majority of the periodic table of elements as "active ingredients" in nearly every product available on the market. RvLeshrac 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

These commercials mystify me. Were they planning to put out the making-fun commercials the whole time? At first I thought the repetition was some kind of error... The effectiveness of repetition has been shown in the past (we learned it in psych class in high school) but I think it comes off as kind of amateurish... --Galaxiaad 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

2 or 6 active ingredients?

The two listed active ingredients, white bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate, are diluted to .000001 PPM and 1 PPM respectively.

...

The active ingredients in HeadOn are listed as:

• Bryonia Alba (White Bryony) 12X H.P.U.S.
• Iris Versicolor (Blue Flag) 12X H.P.U.S.
• Kali Bichromicum (Potassium Bichromate/Dichromate) 6X H.P.U.S.
• Hydrastis Canadensis (Golden Seal) 30X H.P.U.S.
• Sulphur (Sublimed Sulphur) 12X H.P.U.S.

Are there two or six active ingredients?

I fixed this, i hope you like the section i added. Foobaz·o< 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

HeadOn ad: to prevent headaches, hit the mute button or change channels at the first sign of the ad. Edison 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HeadOn is not homeopathic in the traditional sense, partially because there *is* enough of the active ingredients to be detected. It is more likely that they are calling it "homeopathic" in order to escape stricter regulations that would apply elsewhere. Grouse 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Health warning

I removed the section titled "Health Warning" from the article because it doesn't describe this particular product. It describes risks associated with a certain chemical used in this product, but in a significantly different form. In addition, the claims made in this section (which might not be applicable to the HeadOn product) appear to contradict claims made earlier in the article. I won't revert if the section is restored, but it is my feeling that to include it amounts to original research on the safety of this product. Cheers, Afluent Rider 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Logically, no homeopathic product can be bad for you unless the inactive ingredients are tainted or toxic. They're the only ones present! RvLeshrac 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

The article says the active ingredients besides wax are very small in quantity, and as a result, HeadOn is basically a placebo. But aren't those active ingredients just a medium to deliver menthol onto your head, which is the actual ingredient that helps with headaches? Not in the sense that it physically gets rid of the headache, but masks the pain of the headache due to the tingling sensation of the menthol. --Rc251 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, how do we cite that. Mircalis calls it a homeopathic medicine, based on it's active ingredient, the ppt herbal and ppm chemical. Their adverts make no claims at all, because their not allowed to. Why does Wikipedia have to explain what no one else bothers to? 64.252.75.17 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RenewIn

I saw this new product once, in the same spot as where a HeadOn commercial normally goes. I put it in, but I'm a little unclear about what it does. AkvoD3 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Impossibly small concentration?

According to the article, "Extra Strength Sinus Headache Relief" contains Golden Seal Hydrastis 8 × 10⁻³²%. So, a 0.2 ounce tube would contain 4.54 × 10⁻³⁶kg of Golden Seal Hydrastis [1]. But the mass of a proton is 1.67 × 10⁻²⁷kg. Is Walgreens an unreliable source, or are the manufacturers just making stuff up? Dave6 ^talk 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a great point. I believe that the manufacturers are making stuff up. Also a possibility is that some of the sticks don't contain any molecules of Golden Seal Hydrastis and some of them do. Either way, we can't put any of this in the article until we find a reliable source to back up these controversial claims. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, math is a reliable enough source to atleast mention in the article that it's impossible for it to contain that little Golden Seal Hydrastis. And even if it did, would it be detectable or controlable for them to put it in their bars? I doubt they would have such advanced and precise machinery. 68.62.233.226 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You should read the discussion page for this article and homeopathy. Scientific facts are totally against Wikipedia policy, you'll be lucky that don't jump on you right now 64.252.75.17 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a very unfair comment. Wikipedia very much supports scientific fact. You just have to cite these instead of pulling them out of your head. You could say: "This is smaller than the size of a single proton, which is 1.67 × 10⁻²⁷kg.^[1], (where [1] references the size of a proton). Also, I'm not sure that the apparent inaccuracy doesn't indicate that the source can't be reliable, at least on this issue. -- trlkly 08:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the major claims of proponents of homeopathy is that exceedingly small concentrations of 'active ingredients' still have an actual effect. Considering, however, that many homeopathic preparations contain vastly fewer than one molecule per dose, I find it rather difficult to accept these claims of efficacy. In fact, in standard homeopathic parlance, the more highly diluted the substance, the higher the "potency", which is a use of the word "potency" quite at odds with its use in any other field. The dilution and succussion section of the article on homeopathy is quite enlightening on this.

BBB Claim

"The company was prohibited from stating their product provided headache relief by the Better Business Bureau because there is no evidence for its efficacy."

The link sourced for this makes absolutely no mention of the BBB (as far as I saw, perhaps I overlooked it). Considering the purpose of the BBB, I can't see how they would be able to "prohibit" anything - as the BBB has no real power. Can anyone provide a reason why this line should stay? TheUncleBob (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

New Commercial

Anyone happen to catch the new HeadOn commercial with a guy breaking through the usual commercial and saying something like "Headon I can't stand your commercial but your produce is amazing". Should be mentioned on the page if someone has the time.--Jersey Devil (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask for deletion

This wiki stink!. There are mention to FDA or any competent institution, just a mention from a Seymour Diamond a head from a headhace clinic that for obvious reason he will disagreed with any cheap medicaments but their treatment.

So, HeadOn is a scam or not, this will will say (NPOV) that yes but using a unclear way, so i don't known if believed or not. --201.222.153.213 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your English is difficult to read. If English is your native tongue, you might want to come back and fix this. If not, you can always write it in your own language, and have somebody translate it. I'll volunteer, if you'd like.

I think you are saying that, because we don't have a statement by the FDA as a source, this article shouldn't exist. You are contesting the reliability of the sources we did use. I won't answer this, because it would violate my role as translator. -- trlkly 08:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FACT tag usage

We need to be careful with overzealous use of the fact tag. Just because a sentence does not have a cite at the end does not mean it isn't cited later on in the paragraph. This article is a case-in-point. The fact that the product is mostly wax is supported by the cite in the next sentence. It would be highly unencyclopedic to include the same source twice in succession. -- trlkly 09:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sirvision Inc Acquisition

It was announced on 26 Sept, 2008 that the HeadOn brand was acquired by SirVision Inc, I'm not sure what the proper formatting would be to include this.

[2] [3]

Why does this product temporarily alleviate headaches?

Regardless of the mentioned articles from the scientific, health, and consumer community, I can personally attest to it alleviating headaches. So can many other people that I know who have reoccuring headaches and have used this product. It does NOT cure a headache nor shorten the duration, but it does help to alleviate the pain. SO HOW DOES IT WORK? How can one of these "active" ingredients produce mild burning on applying it to the dermis. I have experimented with other OTC topicals containing menthol and they also provide help to alleviate headaches (stay away from capsaicin) However, most likely due to being water based as opposed to wax they have a shorter duration. For those that want to provide sources that it doesn't work its usually due to a bias against homoeopathic remedies or the annoying commercials. I was just as sceptical until I tried it. But its insanely overpriced which is why I am on here fishing for info on how it works. Headon is a scam, not because it isn't effective but because its overpriced for the quantity in the tube. And no, 100 applications is really overestimating its more like 20 at most.

BTW someone who has at least tried this product ranks as more of authority over whatever crap studies put forth by a biased person who can't plunk down 8$ and wait for the next headache before writing a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.168.45 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ingredient section cleaned up and partial resolvent of head-on mystery

I cleaned up the flow of the paragraphs better and incorporated a valid and easily qualitative experiment (smell it) to validate the argument that there is more to HeadOn than what's on the label. I found a FDA guideline regarding psychopathics and through it realized that there was a quasi loop-hole that allows homoeopathic remedies to contain other active ingredients but at the cost of not being able to list those ingredients. Its really just a way of getting an OTC product to the marketplace without going through the very expensive and time consuming OTC process. But it forces HeadOn to be labeled as a homoeopathy remedy which presumably most knowledgeable people have little "faith" in. This label might attract some people but for the most part only gathered scorn by experts. But those experts probably aren't seeing the whole picture.

I'm pretty sure that my smell hypothesis has merit but was unable to find the threshold for menthol, etc. But it would have to be more than ppb to an odor. Secondly, from personal experience I do know that it does something to the receptors in skin and I seriously doubt that even potassium bichromate at ppm would be effective. Why go through all this trouble and research? Because this article was blatantly biased and passed off something I personally knew to work as a placebo effect based on the ingredient dilutions. So I had to figure out what makes it work. I still don't know what since I lack an analytical laboratory but I assume its something like menthol and camphor. I doubt my changes are 100% wiki certifiable but there needs to be some room for simple deduction and induction. In any case I think that the mystery is partially solved. --66.223.168.45 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)