Hayfever sufferers! Fantastic bargain Lloyds Pharmacy- 'Medinose' + Ioniser £19.99!!

mathsstudent

May I ask what it was that made you decide to buy the 'Medinose' in the first place? Have there been any medical trials that showed it to be effective? Is there any reason to think that red light affects the body in a way that the Sun's light which, afterall, contains red light, does not?

harryharp

mathsstudent wrote: »

May I ask what it was that made you decide to buy the 'Medinose' in the first place? Have there been any medical trials that showed it to be effective? Is there any reason to think that red light affects the body in a way that the Sun's light which, afterall, contains red light, does not?

Yes- the reason was the very positive reviews. I didn't see any trials, but I thought it was worth a try as it's not very expensive and if it doesn't work I haven't lost much.

As it happens, I'm really glad I did, as my son hardly had any hayfever last Summer and he's usually terrible with it.

mathsstudent

Do you think that the reason so many people report positive effects is because the red light itself affects the body, or because they expect the light to affect the body?

harryharp

mathsstudent wrote: »

Do you think that the reason so many people report positive effects is because the red light itself affects the body, or because they expect the light to affect the body?

If it works, it works.

jamtart6

Ooh hope you don't mind, I reposted the latest offer on grabbit, this year it is both items for £21.99 This thread is now in "its gone.." so thought I'd update. I did link back and cite your name Harryharp

mathsstudent

This seems a rather poor philosophy.
"Why is there night and day?" "Because there is."
"Why do pain killers work?" "Because they do."

The question is more significant when the answer affects our lives. The question of how this product works, if at all, is important because the answer should tell us whether or not to buy it. If the red light affects the body directly, then the product itself is worth the money. If the red light does nothing, but the belief that it does causes an improvement in symptoms, then there are much cheaper ways of producing this effect.

Perhaps you could try this test: next time you feel your hayfever symptoms coming on, instead of using the medinose, shine a torch up your nose instead. (Before you do this, you might want to try and shine the torch through a prism, or onto a CD, to check that the light it produces does indeed contain red light.) Do this as often as you would use the medinose. Have your symptoms reduced? Then there may be truth to the idea that it is the red light itself that helps. Furthermore, you have proven that you need not spend £15-£50 on a medinose, but only £1-£2 on a torch, which also has many other uses.
If you experience no reduction in symptoms, then it is more likely that the light itself does nothing, in which case, you should ask yourself if it is worth spending £15-£50 on a product that claims to do something it does not.

[This test also has the added bonus of being less embarassing than the actual treatment - someone seeing you looking like Rudolf will no doubt think you're completely mad, whereas with this test, you can always claim you're just telling a ghost story!]

Other people who are thinking of buying a Medinose should also try this test before they do so. I imagine that most people already have a torch at home, so this should not incur any expense, and it may save you £15-£50.

peggydoodaa

mathsstudent, do you actually suffer with hayfever yourself? I only ask, as a bad sufferer of hayfever for years I bought a Medinose last year and used it at least twice a day throughout my suffering period, along with all my usual medication. My symptoms were definately reduced whilst using the medinose, not completely gone but definately reduced to a tolerable level. In my eyes, it's worth the £40 I paid for it at the time to actually be able to enjoy the summer months rather than dread them!

Have a read of this:
http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=36438

mathsstudent

Yes, I do.
The torch has no effect on me, if that's what you're wondering. I wondered if it had any effect on other people.

I am aware of what the product claims to do, what I am interested in is if it does it or not. The trial that they refer to had many flaws, which you can read about here: http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/blind-to-the-rudolph-effect/

If I may, I would like to take some of the points from the page you link to.

"The red light acts on the cellular metabolism, slowing down the immune reaction and reducing inflammation of the nasal mucous membranes by inhibiting the release of histamine and sometimes completely eliminating allergic reactions in a natural way."
What evidence, either theoretical or experimental, is there to support these claims? This site offers none, nor did the paper on the flawed trial. Furthermore, if we assume that light can have these effects, why does sunlight or any other form of 'artificial' light not produce the same effect?

"A double blind, placebo controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Medinose. Following treatment, 72% of allergic rhinitis patients reported a reduction in symptoms and an improvement in their overall condition, compared to only 24% in the placebo group."
I have already highlighted the flaws in this trial. 'Normal' medical treatments have to go through many trials before they can be accepted as safe and viable - this product has only been through one, and it was seriously flawed. Hardly good evidence in its favour.

"Patients also received a nasendoscopy (examination of nasal tissue using an endoscope), which showed a significant reduction in nasal tissue inflammation after treatment. This is the ‘gold standard’ diagnostic evaluation for nasal conditions."
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoscope
An endoscope is basically a long fibre-optic cable with a light on the end so that doctors can look inside the body. It is hardly a complex piece of medical technology whose use should indicate that the doctors using it know what they're doing. Apparently the "gold standard" of diagnostic evaluation is just looking at it. Perhaps blood tests could be more conclusive in evaluation of the body's reactions? They would certainly be more objective.

"Medinose has developed this technology into its hand held FDA and CE approved class 2A medical device which is not only clinically proven but drug and side-effect free."
In order to be FDA approved, it is not necessary to show that your product works, only that it is safe. This means that Medinose could tell you to stick the lights up your backside for all the difference it would make to the FDA. Also, being side-effect free would hardly be surprising if the light was doing nothing at all. I have already commented on how "clinically proven" really does not describe the product acurately in any way.

I am not saying that this product definitely doesn't work, I'm asking for some evidence or some theory about why it does/should. Until then, I am extremely skeptical and would not be advising anyone to buy the product.

peggydoodaa

Interesting reading and although the rudolph effect did initially put me off using it, I got over that and gave it a go. I personally didn't buy it on it's 'clinically proven' claims, I bought it as an aid to my hayfever relief. As I said, it didn't get rid of my symptoms completely but combined with my usual medication made last summer tolerable.
It may seem like some kind of hippy laa-laa land thing to some (usually scientists, including members of my family!) but £40 and red nose aside, I'm happily using it again this year.

peggydoodaa

But just because you can't scientifically prove it's working, doesn't mean it isn't. Different people respond to different methods, for some it may even just be psychological and I fully accept that this may be the case BUT if it makes me feel better what does it matter?

Just for the record, I class myself as an open-minded skeptic with many things that can't be proved!

PS that post wasn't that long when I first responded to it, I genuinely did read the link you posted