MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

DIARALIA is a homeopathic remedy for the symptomatic treatment of acute transient diarrhea. It is produced by Boiron, the world’s largest manufacturer of homeopathic remedies. This is how it is currently advertised:

Instructions DIARALIA

Dosage DIARALIA

Adults and children from 6 years

Lozenge 1, 4 to 6 times a day, for a maximum of three days of treatment.
Discontinue treatment as soon as symptoms disappear.

Method and route of administration DIARALIA
Sublingual (tablet to dissolve under the tongue)
In children 18 months to 6 years: dissolve the tablet in a little water before use, because of the risk of aspiration. As soon as the permitted age, dissolve the tablets under the tongue.

Duration of treatment DIARALIA
The duration of treatment should not exceed one week.

In case of overdose DIARALIA

If you have taken more DIARALIA orodispersible tablets that you don” should have:

Consult your doctor or pharmacist immediately.
In case of failure of one or more doses of DIARALIA

If you miss a dose of DIARALIA orodispersible tablets:

Do not take a double dose to make up for the dose that you forgot to take

Pregnancy and lactation with DIARALIA
Ask your doctor or pharmacist before taking any medicine.

In the absence of experimental and clinical data, and as a precautionary measure, the use of this drug should be avoided during pregnancy and lactation.

Composition DIARALIA

Excipients with known effect: This medicinal product contains lactose,
Active substances:
For a 300 mg tablet
Arsenicum album 9CH 1mg
China rubra 5CH 1mg
Podophyllum peltatum 9 CH 1mg
Excipients: sucrose, lactose monohydrate, magnesium stearate

Cons-indication DIARALIA

N” Never use DIARALIA orodispersible tablets:
· In children under 18 months.
· If you are allergic (hypersensitive) to the active substances or to any of the ingredients in CORYZALIA orodispersible tablets.

Possible interactions with DIARALIA

If you are taking or have recently taken any other medicines, including medicines obtained without a prescription, talk to your doctor or pharmacist.

This medication is to be taken between meals.

Adverse DIARALIA

Like all medicines, DIARALIA orodispersible tablets may cause side effects, although not everybody will not matter.
If you notice any side effects not listed in this leaflet, or if the side effects gets serious, please tell your doctor or pharmacist.

Storage conditions DIARALIA

Store at a temperature not exceeding 30 ° C

Precautions and warnings DIARALIA

This medication should not be used in case of vomiting, high fever, blood in the stool.
Any significant diarrhea exposed to the risk of dehydration requiring appropriate rehydration.
If diarrhea persists beyond 3 days, a medical consultation is necessary.
If your doctor has told you have an intolerance to some sugars, contact your doctor before taking this medicine
Use of this medicine is not recommended in patients with galactose intolerance, a Lapp lactase deficiency or malabsorption syndrome glucose or galactose (rare hereditary diseases).

But is there any evidence that DIARALIA works?

I’m glad you asked!

I looked far and wide but found none (if a reader knows of a clinical trial, please let me know).

Jenifer Jacobs (JJ) published a review of 3 studies – all her own! – and concluded that the results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness. So, some homeopathy fans might claim there is good evidence. But I dispute that.

We all know, of course, that diarrhea can be a symptom of a range of serious conditions. Thus, one should not joke about it. On the contrary, one should diagnose the reason for the symptom and treat it adequately.  And one should certainly not advertise unproven treatments for it; one could even go one step further and claim that anyone who does that is fraudulently endangering the health of the often all too gullible consumer.

26 Responses to DIARALIA 40 CP acute diarrhea HOMEOPATHIE Boiron

  • So, no active ingredients, but if you’re allergic to some sugars you may have a reaction.

    • and if you are allergic to quackery?

    • No active ingredients …
      Did anyone measure?

      The theory of Hahnemann accoring his dillution series was never checked. However, people – no matter if they believe in healing capacity of the remedy or not – take it for granted even though it is a very old theory and some people have doubts about Hahnemanns scientifc profession.

      This is something I do not understand. To me the process of dilution described by Hahnemann is a process of extraction followed by purifying of a certain fraction of the dillution. I claim the existence of fractioning of the dillutions after shaking them because of different size of molecules (more precise: molecules with hydrate envelope) and fractioning according granular convection.

      To me it is not legitimate to talk about dillution and loss of material matter in the process without checking if the entire process does dilute or not. Please take into consideration that the process happens in a water-alcohol mixture with certain physico-chemical properties and that the molecules will be coated with a hydrate envelope.

      • it’s been measured many times.
        it is in line with common sense and science.
        and it is generally accepted that beyond a certain potency/dilution there is zero chance of material being present.

      • @Holger
        There is no evidence that dilution works in a different way for homeopathy than it does for chemistry.

        the process of dilution described by Hahnemann is a process of extraction followed by purifying of a certain fraction of the dillution.

        To the best of my knowledge, no extraction or purifying takes place – quite the opposite, actually: the original substance is dissolved and simply diluted until there is nothing left that can have any effect. The only complexity stems from the base material chosen.
        For instance salt (Natrium Muriaticum in homeobabble) simply dissociates into sodium and chloride ions, the concentration of which goes down by two orders of magnitude at every dilution step as one would expect – but only during the first six or seven steps. After that, the concentration of sodium ions levels off, mostly because minute amounts of sodium ions leach out of the glassware, or are present in the diluent already. Chloride ions will level off at a lower concentration, and their place will be taken by carbonate and other negative salt ions, again coming from the glass, but also from the air (as carbon dioxide).
        If, however, you start out with e.g. putrid duck liver and heart (the base material for oscillococcinum), then the dilution process is much more complex, and the composition of the dilution changes dramatically during the first 6 or 7 steps. As the original material is a badly defined mess of cells, microbes, proteins, enzymes, salts and other stuff, complete cells will disappear first (mostly by osmotic lysis), followed by the microbes and proteins present, with simple salt ions remaining the longest.
        And when a homeopathic product is mineral-based (e.g. Berlin Wall), then you will get only a couple of relatively soluble substances in the first dilutions, to dwindle into nothing again soon thereafter. Most of the base material doesn’t even make it beyond the first dilution step.

        Unless serial dilution takes place in one container AND something sticks to the walls of that container, you will always end up with just the diluent (including any contaminants) by about step 12, and nothing else. And even when something persistently sticks to the wall of the container, then this ‘something’ will of course keep sticking to the wall when the final dilution is poured into another vessel as the final product.

        So no, nothing special happens when homeopaths dilute and shake their ‘remedies’, and the end result is just the diluent, and nothing else.

  • Wasn’t sugar + water + salts the treatment of choice in case of childhood diarrhoea? Yes, I believe it is!

    So Boiron at least found the correct ingredients, but just got the dose wrong … Nevertheless, they’re making progress!

  • Jennifer Jacobs, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, has gotten her HIGH-QUALITY research published in Pediatrics (!) and Pediatrics Infectious Disease Research. Her research has consistently been found to be of the highest standard.

    It is typical that you, who claim to advocate for evidence based medicine, who disparage her (are you misognistic or just anti-good science?).

    It is good to see the “bad faith” you hold for women and for science.

    • “are you misognistic or just anti-good science?”
      No!
      If you mean ‘misogynistic’, I am that neither.
      But I do distrust a person who publishes almost exclusively positive trials that are never replicated. that is advocating good science.
      https://edzardernst.com/2021/01/a-homeopath-becomes-the-16th-member-of-my-the-alternative-medicine-hall-of-fame/
      btw: Andrew Wakefield published his stuff in THE LANCET!

      • Eddie…in due respect (and I don’t say this lightly), YOU are now lying…and you KNOW it.

        You KNOW that Dr. Jacobs has not always published trials with positive results because you have referenced her studies.

        1) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16296913/

        You referenced this article here as recent as June 17, 2022! https://edzardernst.com/2022/06/individualized-homeopathy-as-a-treatment-for-adhd-a-new-systematic-review/

        2) Jacobs, J, Guthrie, BL, Montes, GA, Jacobs, LE, Mickey-Colman, N, Wilson, AR, DiGiacomo, R, Homeopathic Combination Remedy in the Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea in Honduras, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Oct 2006, Vol. 12, No. 8 : 723 -732. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278

        You discussed the lack of positive results of this study here:
        https://edzardernst.com/2021/01/a-homeopath-becomes-the-16th-member-of-my-the-alternative-medicine-hall-of-fame/

        Just because others have not replicated her precise studies is no statement about Dr. Jacobs…it is a statement about other factors involved with research…and you KNOW this too.

        Shame on you…but like Donald Trump, you’ll spin this information and so will your cult members.

        • You KNOW that Dr. Jacobs has not always published trials with positive results because you have referenced her studies.
          You cannot even read a simple sentence without getting it twisted through your innate biases.
          THIS IS WHAT I WROTE:
          “But I do distrust a person who publishes almost exclusively positive trials that are never replicated. that is advocating good science.”

        • Dana

          As I said in the previous Jacobs thread, and increasingly relevant because another year has passed.

          “Those trials were 20 years ago. Plenty of time for others to replicate the results and for individualised homeopathy to become front-line treatment for childhood diarrhoea.

          Hasn’t happened, has it.

          Why do you think this is?

          Might this be because three trials were not of high quality but were the standard exercises in p-hacking and Texas sharpshooting that we see time and again from idiot homeoquacks desperate to seek validation of their faith in the nonexistent powers of magic shaken water?

          Others thought so. And Edzard gave a list of references above showing exactly that.

          The Jacobs diarrhoea trials were recognised as the nonsense they are and rightly ignored, Dana.

          Scientifically-ignorant fools such as yourself who want to continue trying to beat their skinless drums whilst shouting “BANG BANG BANG” and thinking we won’t notice are objects only of ridicule. You turn up here time and again to do your Rumpelstiltskin act, stamping, frothing and jabbering and are shown to be wrong each and every time. You never learn,Dana. Never. That is why you are a fool. It is why your sputterings are ignored. You are an ignorant little man who once again is happy to demonstrate this ignorance on a public forum.”

    • @Dana Ullman
      Science progresses by critically judging the work of scientists, each paper at its own merits, regardless of their previous career.
      What reason do you have to uncritically accept Mrs. Jacobs’ work?

      oh, sorry, rhetorical question, let me put it in a slightly different way:

      What GOOD reason do you have to uncritically accept Mrs. Jacobs’ work?

      • Mrs Jacobs? Are women with an MD degree Mrs?

        Once again, this is no irony to the misogyny amongst people here!

        • I was hoping you apologize for calling me a liar without a good reason.

        • @Dana Ullman
          This has nothing to do with Mrs Jacobs being female. Anyone stupid enough to believe that homeopathy works does not deserve their academic title(s), and I will certainly not address them by any such titles that they may have. This apart from the fact that I rarely address people by their titles anyway.

          However, your comment supports the notion that quacks and in particular homeopaths set great store by titles – probably as part of their ongoing efforts to fool people into believing that their magic water-shaking should be considered equal to real medicine.

        • The term “Dr” is used for physicians, Dana. Jacobs’ witless promotion of quackery means she does not deserve the honourific.

          Anyway, nice diversion. Presumably all of mainstream medicine is misogynistic because it has ignored her findings?

          Keep gabbling, Dana. We’ll keep mocking your silliness.

        • @Dana Ullman

          Congratulations for spelling misogyny correctly this time.

    • How long ago were those *cough* “high-quality” studies published, Dana? Jacobs’ meta-analysis came out in 2003. Plenty of time for further research to vindicate her findings and for homeopathy to be recognised as an effective front-line treatment for diarrhoea along with oral rehydration.

      Hasn’t happened, has it.

      Why not? Sexism, as you laughably claim? Bad faith?

      No.

      It is because her research was the standard specious twaddle produced by homeopaths and was recognised as such by doctors. Which is why her conclusions were hence ignored. As with all the risible tripe you and your fellow loons wave around so triumphantly.

      As ever, Dana, you remain an insignificant and risible object of ridicule.

      • Yeah…Dr. Jacobs’ work has NEVER been disproved. The research stands!

        Three cheers for high-quality studies, even if they question the misassumptions of pseudoscientists like so many of the people at this website who prefer their own beliefs over solid science.

        • I thought you might want to apologize for calling me a liar.

        • They don’t need to be disproved, Dana. That’s not how science works. They just need to be recognised as the nonsense that they are. Which they have been. Which is why homeopathy still has no place in the treatment of diarrhoea. It’s not just the people who post on this website who recognise homeopathy for the fantastical twaddle it is, Dana.

          The person who has a religious belief in magic shaken water despite what science tells him is the fool, Dana, and that fool is you. Your stamping and flailing and yammering remains as inconsequential and insignificant as ever. All your words have made not one iota of difference. You can try and say what you think is pseudoscience, but nobody pays any heed to the words spoken by an idiot.

        • Dana Ullman wrote “Dr. Jacobs’ [sic] work has NEVER been disproved. The research stands!”

          Wrong, as usual.

          Reproducibility, also known as replicability and repeatability, is a major principle underpinning the scientific method. For the findings of a study to be reproducible means that results obtained by an experiment or an observational study or in a statistical analysis of a data set should be achieved again with a high degree of reliability when the study is replicated. There are different kinds of replication, but typically replication studies involve different researchers using the same methodology. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

    • If only there was criticism of this “researcher” on grounds of gender…Which there isn’t, just on the grounds of the research not being much cop.

      Pretty desperate there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to new posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories