There's several problems with the statement made by Jerf. First, there's no control group. Second, there's breakdown of what actually helped the child feel better. Was it the active ingredient or something else? Lastly, w/o looking at a larger group its unclear how widely applicable it is.
Again, let me reiterate, if it works for you, that's great. There are people who appear to be largely immune to HIV. For them unprotected sex carries little risk of AIDS. But an isolated statement about a single person is only an isolated statement about a single person. That one person has great advice, but its not generalizable w/o more information.
"There's several problems with the statement made by Jerf. First, there's no control group."
Ah, you're making a critical error, which is frequently made by people. There can't be a control group. This is real life, not a science experiment. It is not possible to life your life in the realm strictly covered by science.
By far the dominant theory from a Bayesian perspective is that the kid had a cough (abundantly demonstrated from evidence), that the thing called "cough syrup" worked as designed, and that once it wore off the cough returned. There is no science here. We can no go back and "rerun" the experiment. The use of science terminology to attack my experience is actually a deep, deep perversion of the principles of science. The tools are completely inapplicable.
Unfortunately, it has become abundantly clear that again from a Bayesian perspective, reading a medical paper about something like cough syrup in toddlers and expecting it to contain Unvarnished Truth is not justified.
The use of science terminology to attack my experience is actually a deep, deep perversion of the principles of science. The tools are completely inapplicable.
I'm not using science to attack your experience. I've tried to say several times, and in many different ways, if it works for you great.
BUT I am using science to say that you haven't made a scientific statement. You've made a statement about your son in a specific instance. That's it. And that's fine. As you say, that's your experience. But that's about all you can say.
I just went back really quickly and checked. The only scientific statement I made is that there's no particular scientific evidence that cough syrup in normal doses is bad, which is true to the best of my knowledge. It was shut down due to a lack of scientific evidence of safety, but I'm perfectly satisfied with the decades of safe use (at correct doses) prior to that decision. Had the Feds stopped usage because at normal doses they encountered some problems in some children, I'd have come to different conclusions, but to the best of my problems this case has not occurred (beyond possibly low allergy levels, which you just can't paralyze yourself over, just about everything has someone allergic/reactive to it). And an encouragement to find out what the real reasons are behind the opaque advice and think for yourself. I never claimed that the fact that it worked once (or, actually, twice, but I didn't mention that; we actually do not reach straight for the medicine in general but when the child is on their third day of sleep deprivation the balances change, and again note that when I say the child here I mean it; we were trading off and actually we were well-rested overall) proved anything "scientifically".
(Incidentally, the same appears to be true of Benedryl, for what it's worth.)
I think your detectors for anti-scientific crackpot triggered, which I understand because someone who actually deeply understands science and its limits can accidentally trigger them sometimes where the science is particularly iffy or thinner than advertised.
The fear I have is that it seems like I'm being critical, and I certainly don't intend that. You clearly have thought about this, frankly probably more than I have. We just disagree, and honestly its fairly minor for the most part.
In any case, lets not be these ladies if our kids ever do have a party together:
Again, let me reiterate, if it works for you, that's great. There are people who appear to be largely immune to HIV. For them unprotected sex carries little risk of AIDS. But an isolated statement about a single person is only an isolated statement about a single person. That one person has great advice, but its not generalizable w/o more information.