Talk:Cold medicine

message: I think this should be replaced:
:Today one of the most popular brand names are Fisherman's Friend, Halls and Ricola.
It says "one of the most...", but three brands are mentioned. Also, I've never heard of one of these "most popular" brands. Just say "there are many brands and forms available", something like that.
:DavidH 1 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
*I think listing brands are fine. Better wording would be "Some popular brands are..." though. The goal of Wikipedia is to be informative, even if that information is about giving people an idea of what to look for at the grocery store. --Aleron235 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, notice that in the paragraph above the one we are discussing it is clearly stated that the "cough reflex is very strong, and cannot be suppressed entirely". Thus, the person will still cough no matter what you do. Why not add an ingredient that will at the very least make those coughs more effective? It makes perfect sense.
"The last statement has no weight. whoever wrote it probably doesn't understand..."   I removed this text from the main article.  The article pages are no place for ad hominim attacks. Instead, I replaced it with something that I think captures both thoughts.  I also edited the text in the above paragraph to make it render correctly.  Someone may wish to include it in the main article at some later time.  --Mdwyer 02:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't mention brands 

message: There is some inconsistency in how 'expectorant' and 'expectorants' are handled.
* 'Expectorant' redirects here (to 'Cough medicine')
* This article then uses the linked word 'expectorants', which would be kind of self-referential, except that...
* 'Expectorants' redirects to 'Mucolytic agent', but then...
* 'Mucolytic agent' informs us that "expectorants should not be confused with a mucolytic."
Among other things, it seems unreasonable that 'Expectorant' and 'Expectorants' would redirect to different places. Jim (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Handling of Expectorant(s)

message: A couple of years ago I researched expectorants online, and I recall reading that the only expectorant that had been proven to work was water (which fits with my own experience). This is the closest I could find, when I searched again: "Clinical studies have not shown these products (i.e. expectorants in ) to be effective.Smith MBH, Feldman W. Over-the-counter cold medications: a critical review of clinical trials between 1950 and 1991. JAMA. 1993;269:2258-2263; and Hendeles L. Efficacy and safety of antihistamines and expectorants in nonprescription cough and cold preparations. Pharmacotherapy. 
1993;13:154-158. ... Water is a natural expectorant and can be recommended for increased fluid intake in children and teenagers who are not on fluid restriction.Nykamp D. Nonprescription medications in the pediatric population. Am Pharm. 1995;NS35:10-29.; and Tietze LJ. Cough, cold and allergy products. In: Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs. 11th ed. Washington, DC: American Pharmaceutical Association; 1996:133-156." - Choosing Pediatric OTC Medicines (US Pharmacist journal)
I suspect it's accurate to say that "Water is the best expectorant you can take and will help thin the mucus and loosen the cough." & "For a wet cough, a glass of water is the best expectorant you can take.". But these sources aren't ideal - does someone knows some more appropriate (e.g. academic) sources? --Singkong2005 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw the effect of water on mucus should also be relevant to articles such as sinusitis and nasal mucus (logically, and based on personal experience). However I can't find suitable sources. --Singkong2005 04:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find me a pubmed reference of some studies rather than a book link ( a review preferably ).  I am hesitant to start stating the obvious.  All studies should be scientific.  People do none scientific things than try to attach the wording of science to it.  The over the counter stuff and the gold standard (codeine) has recently been shown to be bunk.  Everyone compared there treatment to the gold standard with no evidence that the gold standard was better than placebo.  I am sure the companies new what they were doing ( they have subsequently made billions on OTC snake oil ).  It is usually not hard to match a placebo.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Effective expectorants

message: for two days ive been taking cough drops because of my caughing and i find it haard not to choke on them because of the huge reflex of breathing in realy fast after a cough... theyre deadly... Milldog 93 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell are you keeping it in the back of your mouth where it will obstruct your windpipe when you inhale?  -Grammaticus Repairo 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cough drops of death 

message: Current article says:
"Cough medicine", for example "Grandpa's old cough medicine", is also a commonly used euphemism for whiskey and other strong alcoholic beverages, or even actual cough medicine such as NyQuil which in some formulations has a high alcohol content.
How can "cough medicine" be a euphemism for "actual cough medicine such as NyQuil"?
I think the author needs to sort this out. Perhaps two sentences are required. e.g. "Cough medicine is also a commonly used euphemism for whiskey and other strong alcoholic beverages. Note that some cough medicines such as NyQuil can have high alcohol content."
Ordinary Person 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have such information, then go ahead and add it (while still respecting Wikipedia's "no original research" policy).  -Grammaticus Repairo 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cough medicine a euphemism for cough medicine?

message: for an article on cough medicine in general, too much focuses on  the 2006 china incident. --137.238.121.88 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much on tainted stuff 

message: I took my mother to a hospital where she was subscribed "Linctus Codeine" for some cough she has been having for some time. I have been to most farmasis and was said that this drug has been banned for almost 2 years now. Is this true? Please help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrunan (talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linctus Codeine 

message: This entry seems to concentrate primarily on pharmacology (i.e., ingredients, their effects, etc.) but I'm wondering if there should be at least a brief section summarizing some of the legal issues pertaining to the subject: for example, some states have laws limiting the sale of cough medicines containing certain ingredients; individual retail stores have initiated their own policies, and so on. (I realize it might be possible to look up each and every ingredient mentioned in the article, but something 'central' might be more convenient.)
Of course, if this particular article should be limited to pharmacological matters, a 'legal issues' section wouldn't be appropriate.
   --JWMcCalvin (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal and related matters 

message: The editorial section on opioid analgesics needs to be edited and reduced to fit into scope of the article as a whole. I think it should stick to products used in  current practice with maybe a paragraph or two on history of prior products. Laudanum is the stuff of Victorian Age poets Byron and Shelley.  There are hundreds if not thousands of opioid analogs and derivatives that have zero practical value in modern medicine anywhere in the world. Perhaps with some citations and some fact checking, this part of the article could be moved to a page about the history of opioid products. As it stands its wordy, inaccurate, incomplete, and has way too much detail unessential to discussion of "cough medicine."  All opioids have some cough suppressant properties; there are only a handful in use in modern medicine. Also, not all of them are opioids or derivatives.  One that pops into mind is benzonatate.  Its a good idea for people to have a reference to see the range of cough preparations, buts lets not send them to the chemists seeking Laudanum.  68.4.46.85 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove overlong narcotic section 

message: This article asserts contamination with diethylene glycol, while Toxic cough syrup and others state ethylene glycol.
Iain marcuson (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with Toxic Cough Syrup Article 

message: It states that codeine is the strongest cough suppressant and is the gold standard that all other meds are compared too.  The only problem is recent studies have found it no better than placebo. That makes it an easy gold standard to meet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the POV template because I don't see an issue with neutrality. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes think i fixed most of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article listed above, at journals.lww.com, it states; "The opioid codeine has been a mainstay in the treatment of cough for decades and this drug is widely regarded as the ‘gold standard’ cough suppressant." Has been, as used here, does not mean it is no longer effective, only that is has been used for many years. This begs to question why one would say this, when anyone who has been stricken with a severe cough, can state otherwise, myself included. The article also stated that "recent findings" show something different than the many tests over the years, and they do not know why. This looks to me, to be another narcotic product, that todays physicians are looking for an excuse to quit writing.--Craxd (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: So why was the paragraph on cocoa deleted? Is this http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/04-1990fjev1 no longer valid? Piechjo (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a review article of data in humans.  This one is about guinea pigs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Figure 4 in the article shows how theobromine was much more effective than codeine or placebo in 10 healthy volunteers. Did you see it? --IO Device (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We need review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocoa

message: I think the discussion of effectiveness is best while discussing each individual med.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we're making a statement about cough medicine in general, we HAVE to be specific about which meds we're talking about. As to where we should discuss efficacy, I don't know. If we can't do a better job of listing and discussing each med, it may make sense to have a dedicated efficacy section. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness

message: I'm surprised that antitussive redirects to cough medicine and yet is barely mentioned.  What are antitussive medicines, how do they work, a list of antitussive medicines is... would seem appropriate.
67.167.106.3 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: antitussive

message: Recent studies show that antitussives are not 100% effective and not significantly effective in young children. However, This entire article gives the POV that all antitussives are unless. What crap! 
1, do you thing a giant international pharmaceutal business could be sustained on fraud? If so you obviously have never heard of efficient markets theory.
2, do you think doctors who prescribe antitussives are all idiots convinced by marketing blitz?
3, do you think no person ever has gained aid in using an antitussive --- and if so why do they continue to use them? People are not idiots, in the main, I used DXM tonight an my coughing stopped. I guess I'm just an idiot too.  
4, If you want clinical evidence I suggest you do a google scholar search on "antitussive". You will find many articles regarding positive antitussive effects. Do you want me to cite them all? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=antitussive&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C31&as_sdtp=
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.244.49 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide high quality secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: yet another wikipedia pov article under the thrall of a dominant editor

message: I could not find anywhere how these cough medicines actually work, particularly the antitussives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preroll (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear if they do work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanics Not Explained. 

message: I tried to add hyrdocodone to the list of antitussive because I have taken it. It was removed because of a poor reference. I tried rewording something that lacked a reference, and then a reference was added. That's fine, but the text added was for codeine. The reference is for codeine and morphine. Why isn't morphine included on this list?  This article seems to be deliberately poorly written in order to discourage the use of cough medicine. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The current opinion of the majority of the medical literature is that "cough medicine" are not better than placebo . As this appears to be the case it is not surprising that the majority of the literature discourages their use. Many countries have specifically come out with statements against their use in kids. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have supplied plenty of references to support your claims and you remove any that do not support your claim. Most of your references are specific for children. Can we get another opinion here? IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure feel free to as at WT:MED. I added another review from 2012 published in lung. There are not really any high quality recent review articles that disagree. The requirement for evidence were a lot less 20 years ago. People said a lot of stuff which was simply "expert opinion" that turned out to be wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That board seems to not get a lot of use. I'll try an RFC first to get some fresh eyes. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing bias 

message: The cases of poisoning caused by counterfeit cough medications do not belong in this article. They are nothing to do with actual cough syrup, and their inclusion looks a lot like scaremongering against a product you have a personal dislike for.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentioned cough medications. Seems okay as it is not making a medical statement. More a social and cultural one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my comment, please. It has nothing to do with actual cough medicine whether the source mentions them or not. This article is about cough medicine. Discussing fake bottles tells us nothing about cough medicine. It's just giving a misleading impression that cough medicine is potentially dangerous. Scaremongering, in other words.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the inclusion is encyclopedic nor is it held to the same standards as everything else in the article.  IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion seems highly relevant to me as are many social aspects of different pharmaceuticals. We should not single out this one, and the text is not scare-mongering at all. It only takes up a fraction of the article. CFCF (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not about cough medicine. It is about counterfeiting. It is not relevant. This article is discussing cough medicines, not intellectual property theft in China.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

text: If you read the text thoroughly Society and culture is a subsection to Drugs, medications and devices. CFCF (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it lists "Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced), Recreational use, Economics". None of these are even close to what was included in the article. The heading is being interpreted differently. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfeiting 

message: Fergus has removed this ref here and replaced it with a fact tag  
The ref says "Overall, there was absence of credible evidence" and "No practice recommendations could be drawn from this review" thus not sure if this is an improvement  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was dead. That's why I removed it. The one you just provided works, thus resolving the issue.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

text:  Fergus, please see WP:DEADREF ("Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working today.").  When you find a dead link, you should not remove the citation; you should tag it with .  That saves time for us, and doesn't leave our text looking uncited to our readers.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: These edits are specifically against the comments above . This user has added them 4 times now and has been reported to 3RR  I have a few concerns with them:
#They basically remove the best available literature from the lead of the article such that it is no longer a summary of the article.
#They move a whole bunch of know evidence about the effects from a section on "effectiveness" to a section at the end called "contraindications". These are not contraindications.
I would thus propose reverting back to the last stable version of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with revert to previous version/lack of consensus for proposed changes, the proposed new version removes all discussion of effectiveness from the lead and therefore creates a WP:LEAD problem, and some of the other moves don't make sense.  It's possible good stuff was added too, but the individual changes should be discussed, keep the ones there's consensus for and don't do the others. Zad68 03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with a revert, the article is worse without them and consensus points to keeping it in. CFCF (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: old friends think alike! lol  Mr Johnson The Second (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Great minds", you mean! ... by the way, what's the main account this one is the sockpuppet for? Zad68 03:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus

message: Not sure why this change was made. Thus reverted  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The pharmaceutical and alt med subheading are discussing effectiveness of each of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No thing in  discusses the order of these or really anything on this article, it's only about specific drugs. It doesn't make sense to have effectiveness below examples of cough medicines which is a necessary section. Mr Johnson The Second (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Please add an examples section then. It does not make sense to discuss effectiveness of examples before defining them. Mr Johnson The Second (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about this section called examples that comes right before effectiveness ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Too small, it does not list any details. It is strange for the effectiveness to explain more than the examples section. Examples should explain what Dextromorphan is for instance. Mr Johnson The Second (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The chemical structure of dextromorphan can be dealt with on that page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just an example. If this article is an appropriate place for discussing whether dextromorphan works or not, then it is an appropriate place to tell what it is. It doesn't make sense to have one and not the other, no one will know what is being discussed, and it seems biased. Mr Johnson The Second (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The current layout that first explains what they are and then covers how well they work (or don't) is better.  The proposed change mixes these two topics and then leaves an extra Effectiveness section after.  The current layout is more clear. Zad68 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: This "Medicines repressing the coughing itself (the antitussives) should only be used in non-productive coughing, e.g. when no slime is produced. If slime is produced, coughing is a good way to get rid of it. In that case expectorants may be used to relieve symptoms.http://medical.tpub.com/10669-c/css/10669-c_254.htm" is not a very good ref.
There is also not good evidence that expectorants relieve symptoms. And this is not an "example" of a cough medicine but a comment on effectiveness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you can say that they "don't relieve symptoms", you'd first have to define which symptom you're talking about.  I doubt that an expectorant would suppress coughing (actually, I could imagine it increasing coughing), but it might relieve the symptom of "begging the doctor to prescribe something" quite nicely.  ;-)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but typically one needs evidence of benefit before saying it is useful for something. Yes it might stop the begging... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cough medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525060232/http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/alerts/CoughandCold/Minutes2CoughandCold.asp to http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/alerts/CoughandCold/Minutes2CoughandCold.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In my view this article should be called "cold medicine", which redirects here.  These combination drugs deal with other stuff than coughing, and there are many variations that have no antitussives in them.  Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :DayQuil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "DayQuil" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :NyQuil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NyQuil" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]