Talk:HeadOn/Archives/2012

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

[1] [2]