Talk:Cough medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cough medicine article.
Article policies
Cough medicine is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Linctus

Hello, I started doing the Linctus page, but it was (rightly) redirected to here. I'd like to add 'Linctus' to this page in some way (ie to mention it's a cough suppressant, syrupy medicine, etc...) The history of the Linctus page should have my points. Also some references regarding whether it works or not, etc, might be good?

[edit] Linctus Photo

Took a photo of a linctus bottle (needs rotating, sorry don't have necessary software, maybe it could be used???)

Lintus bottle
Lintus bottle

[edit] Don't mention brands

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)


"Some cough mixtures contain both expectorants and suppressants in their active ingredients - again suggestive that they are primarily placebo in their effect."

How does containing both a suppressant and an expectorant suggest that the placebo effect is the intended action mechanism. Couldn't this be a two pronged mixture intended to handle both types of cough?

An expectorant promotes coughing, a suppressant prevents coughing. Their actions are in conflict with each other. CustardJack 11:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

An expectorant lowers the viscosity of the mucous/phlegm of the bronchi/trachea and causes more respiratory fluid, which has low viscosity, to be produced. This action allows for the break-up of any thick obstruction in the throat and allows for easier removal via productive cough. Without the expectorant, any coughing would most likely be unproductive and irrating to the respiratory tract. The antitussive also aids in the treatment by lowering the total amount of coughing and irritation that is caused by both the obstructive mucous caused by infection/inflammation and the expectorant. Productive cough is still achieved and the overall effectiveness of the combination therapy is better than no treatment when excessive irritation and pain are being caused by coughing.

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)

[edit] Question

Does anyone know anything about the history of cough syrup flavoring or where that article might be found?

[edit] Handling of Expectorant(s)

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)

[edit] Effective expectorants

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.[1] ... Water is a natural expectorant and can be recommended for increased fluid intake in children and teenagers who are not on fluid restriction.[2]" - 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."[1] & "For a wet cough, a glass of water is the best expectorant you can take."[2]. But these sources aren't ideal - does someone knows some more appropriate (e.g. academic) sources? --Singkong2005 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

In the main article, there is an external link citation to mayoclinic.com after the claim that water is a good expectorant.. but the mayoclinic article does not talk about water being an expectorant.. it doesn't even mention the word "water" in it at all. --Wuziq 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cough drops of death

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)

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)

[edit] Cough medicine a euphemism for cough medicine?

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)

== Recreational usage ==--137.238.121.88 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

can something be put in about recreational usage, ie its effects, detriments Etc.

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)

[http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_health2.shtml The Bad News Isn't In A Look at the Evidence for Specific Mechanisms of Dissociative-Induced Brain Damage and Cognitive Impairment]

Sorry if the coding isn't exactly right--my browser is weird :\

-Qolonoscopy

[edit] Too much on tainted stuff

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)