Debunking the drug store: Stodal

For those of you who aren’t aware, I am on a mission to debunk at least a small part of Shoppers Drug Mart.  This time, it’s Boiron’s Stodal cough mixture.

I hadn’t heard of Stodal before.  Apparently it “relieves all types of coughs”, which seems like a pretty bold (and evidence-based claim).  This surprised me as it is produced by Boiron, a homeopathic manufacturer.  Now there are lots of perfectly good cough medicines out there, even if some of them taste like you’re drinking the products of a high school chemistry experiment.  So what does Boiron bring to the table?

What’s in it?

Here are the ingredients:

  • Antimonium tartaricum 6CH (antimony potassium tartrate, a poisonous crystalline compound used in medicine as an expectorant and in the treatment of parasitic infections, such as schistosomiasis)
  • Bryonia 3CH (Bryonia is a genus of plants in the cucumber family and commonly know as bryony)
  • Coccus cacti 3CH (ground-up Dactylopius coccus (previously named Coccus cacti), the cochineal beetle from which the dye cochineal comes).  In case you were wondering what these look like, here are a bunch on an Opuntia cactus:

    Cochineal beetles, photo by Zyance
  • Drosera MT (Drosera  is a genus of sundews, carnivorous plants)
  • Ipecacuanha 3CH (Cephaelis ipecacuanhacommonly known as ipecacan American shrub)
  • Pulsatilla 6CH (Pulsatilla is a common genus of wildflower)
  • Rumex crispus 6CH (Rumex crispus is curled dock, a flowering plant)
  • Spongia tosta 3CH (sponges of the species Euspongia officinalis (like the kind you wash with) which are baked in a drum – hence “toasted”)
  • Sticta pulmonaria 3CH (Lobaria pulmonaria, a lichen)

So we have a syrup made from several different herbs and plants, a lichen, a poisonous chemical, and ground-up beetles.  Sounds interesting.  The amounts are pretty precise and this is a fairly complex blend of ingredients so there must be pretty good evidence for efficacy, eh?

Does it work?

Well a PubMed search for “stodal” brings up nothing but three articles authored by a guy called Horst Stodal, so it appears that there have been no studies of the treatment as a unit.  So what about the ingredients?  It turns out that there has been some work done on the constituents of the medicine:

Antimonium tartaricum – This is better known as “tartar emetic” or antimony potassium tartrate.  This compound has a use in modern medicine, but I could not find anything to do with coughs.  Antimony-based compounds have traditionally been used to combat onchocerciasis (river blindness) (Barrter et al., 1948) and schistosomiasis (Farid et al., 1972).  Both diseases are caused by small worms and antimony has been shown to have some effect in their treatment (although modern drugs are far superior).  Antimony potassium tartrate is still used as the first-line treatment for leishamaniasis, a nasty disease caused by a protozoan that is transmitted by sandfly bites.  However, the treatment itself is a poison which causes excruciating pain.  The only paper on a homeopathic preparation of antimony potassium tartrate (and the only PubMed result from a search for “Antimonium tartaricum”) was a methodological paper developing a mechanism for measuring concentrations of the chemical in homeopathic preparations (Gallignani et al. 2005).

Bryonia – In contrast, bryonia has received some attention as a homeopathic medical intervention.  Searching for “Bryonia clinical trial” gives six results.

  1. Paris et al. (2008) found no effect of bryonia in combination with three other homeopathic treatments on the use of morphine following knee ligament reconstruction.  158 patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind study to homeopathic remedies, placebo or no intervention.  Homeopathy performed no better than placebo.
  2. Murali et al. (2006) conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a herbal remedy involving bryony, drosera and ipecacuanha on the symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Essentially, this is reduced lung capacity and laboured breathing.  The study involved 105 patients aged between 35 and 85 all of whom had smoked at least the equivalent of 20 cigarettes per day for 20 years.  The patients were placed into either “biomedical” (i.e. conventional) treatments, herbal treatment or placebo treatment.  The results suggested that the herbal treatment was superior to either the placebo or the biomedical treatment.  However, the sample sizes in each treatment were small and there is a suggestion of higher levels of baseline problems in the herbal group.  The table below illustrates the problem.  The baseline values for five out of seven measures are greater in the herbal group (DCBT1234-Lung KR).  Thus, despite the fact that the dyspnoea is lower in the biomedical group at the end of the trial, this does not constitute a significance considerable improvement.  Similarly, both biomedical and herbal treatments reduce wheezing to zero but this is not significant in the biomedical group because of the low baseline data.  That said, the evidence for the herbal treatment does appear reasonable in the other cases. 
  3. The inclusion of the third study is slightly irreverent on my part…  Vickers et al. (2001) set out to test whether or not homeopaths could tell the difference between homeopathic remedies and placebo.  50 homeopathic practitioners in the UK were recruited.  The study was randomised and double-blind.  Practioners were given a one week course of one treatment (placebo or bryonia), a two week “wash-out” period to allow the treatment to leave their system and then a further one week period on the other treatment (placebo or bryonia).  Sure enough, the homeopaths performed no better than chance at identifying the homeopathic remedy.
  4. The fourth study is actually a follow-up to the third.  McCarney et al. (2002) conducted a study to investigate whether homeopaths could use dowsing to identify homeopathic preparations.  Six qualified, practising homeopaths who used dowsing in their practice were asked to pick the preparation of bryony 12C from a pair of bottles where the other bottle contained a placebo.  Each homeopath judged 26 pairs of bottles.  Unsurprisingly, they performed no better than chance…
  5. Cornu et al. (2010) studied a combination of arnica montana and bryonia looking for benefist in avoiding bleeding, pain, inflammation, and myocardial ischaemia following heart valve surgery.  They used 96 patients randomly allocated to placebo or homeopathy.  Sure enough, there was no difference between the two treatments.
  6. Berrebi et al. (2001) studied the effects of bryony and apis mellifica on post-partum lactation.  This is a problem that is currently treated with unpleasant medications.  The study used 71 patients, with a double-blind, placebo controlled design.  The results are difficult to interpret because few details are given and I would like to see more statistical information, but they demonstrate a significant benefit to homeopathy over placebo.
  7. The final study wasn’t available online, so I will have to go on what the abstract describes…  Panossian et al. (1999) describe a study involving athletes who were given bryony and Schisandra (a Chinese herb) prior to heavy exercise.  The athletes (sample size uncertain) who were given the herbs had higher levels of nitric oxide in their saliva prior to exercise and low levels after exercise compared to a placebo group.  Nitric oxide has a range of beneficial effects on the body, increasing blood flow and reducing inflammation.

Summary: A few small trials show promising results for Bryony for post-partum lactation and serious respiratory disease.

Coccus cacti – The only studies looking at cochineal were interested in allergies to dyes, there is no evidence for its efficacy in treating symptoms of coughs.

Drosera – This plant is a good example of ethnobotany contributing something truly useful to medicine.  Chemicals contained within sundews have been shown to have antimicrobial effects on a range of bacteria, including those causing respiratory infections (Didry et al., 1998).  Drosera species have been used in folk medicine for centuries, and a lot more details are given by Babula et al. (2009, available here).  However, despite some in vivo work done demonstrating anti-spasmodic and anti-inflammatory properties, there is no clinical trial data by which to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments.

Ipecacuanha – Ipecac is another product of ethnobotany. Ipecac is an Amazonian medicinal plant, the roots of which are used as an expectorant (clears mucous), an emetic (makes you vomit) and an amoebacide (kills amoebae, small single-celled organisms some of which can cause disease).  It was regularly used as an emetic (to induce vomiting) until the early 20th Century but its use is now not recommended as their are far better contemporary treatments.  There are a lot of PubMed articles on ipecac, mostly relating to emetics or the biology of the plant.  Searching for “ipecacuanha homeopathy” reveals three results.  One of these is a chemical analysis of ipecac mother tincture and the other two document the use in the treatment of mastitis in cattle (Varshney and Naresh, 2004,2005).  Conclusion: might help if you have swollen udders…

Pulsatilla – A search for “pulsatilla clinical trial” yields three results.  Friese et al. (1997, available here) conducted an observational study (no placebo, no blinding, no randomisation…) on the treatment of otitis media (middle ear infection).  131 children were involved, of which 103 underwent homeopathic treatment and 28 underwent conventional treatment.  Both treatments were tailored to the child’s symptoms, with homeopaths selecting from among 12 remedies.  The results showed some promise for the homeopathic approach, but this was not separated from placebo.  The authors spend the first four paragraphs of the discussion defending their shoddy experimental design.  The second trial looked at Eviprostat which is a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlargement of the prostate) (Tamaki et al., 2008).  However, this study only compared two medicines with different doses of the herbal remedies (including Pulsatilla) and so nothing can be said about its efficacy vs placebo.  The third study is a discussion piece published (in German) in a German veterinary journal…  The abstract mentions that a homeopathic remedy involving Pulsatilla was no better than conventional remedies at improving the puerperal period or fertility after retention of placenta (in cows, I presume).  No evidence of efficacy here.

Rumex crispus – There seems to be evidence that R. crispus leaves have antioxidant and antimicrobial properties (Yildirim et al., 2001), although the benefits of antioxidants have been disputed.  However, there was no clinical trial data involving this remedy and no research published on its role in dealing with coughs.

Spongia tosta – This one is just a bit silly, there are no results on PubMed for “Spongia tosta”.

Sticta pulmonaria – There is one clinical trial published on Lobaria pulmonaria (as part of a combination homeopathic remedy) as a treatment for sinusitis (Adler, 1999).  This was an open-label study (the opposite of double-blind, where both experimenter and patient know what they are getting), there was no placebo or comparison of any kind.  The study reported that most people got better within a certain span of time.  This study says nothing about clinical efficacy.


I have tried to provide a fairly comprehensive view of the medicinal ingredients of this drug.  These vary from folk medicine (Drosera, Ipecacuanha) to Victorian medicine (Antimonium tartaricum) and finally to just plain weird (beetles?).  There is some limited evidence for some of the constituents having some medicinal effects.  Of these, only Drosera could reasonably be considered for a cough medicine, given that it may have some anti-inflammatory properties.  What is needed is a large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial for Stodal that could demonstrate efficacy against placebo and relative to conventional medicine.  As a final point, we are often told that homeopathy is fantastic because it is really individualised and tailored to the needs of the patient.  Why on earth are they selling it over-the-counter, then!?  More to come…

Post 1: Introduction

Post 2: Stodal, by Boiron

Post 3: Oscillococcinum and Homeocoksinum



Adler M. 1999. Efficacy and safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis. Adv Ther 16: 103-111.

Babula P, Adam V, Havel L, Kizek R. 2009. Noteworthy Secondary Metabolites Naphthoquinones – their Occurrence, Pharmacological Properties and Analysis. Current Pharmaceutical Analysis 5: 47-68.

Bartter FC, Burch TA, Cowie DB, Ashburn LL, Brady FJ. 1948. Experimental therapy of onchocerciasis with trivalent antimonials. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 50: 89-96.

Berrebi A, Parant O, Ferval F, Thene M, Ayoubi J-M, Connan L, Belon P. 2001. Traitement de la douleur de la montée laiteuse non souhaitée par homéopathie dans le post-partum immédiat. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 30: 353.

Didry N, Dubreuil L, Trotin F, Pinkas M. 1998. Antimicrobial activity of aerial parts of Drosera peltata Smith on oral bacteria. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 60: 91-96.

Farid Z, Bassily S, Lehman JS, Ayad N, Hassan A, Sparks HA. 1972. A comparative evaluation of the treatment of Schitosoma mansoni with niridazole and potassium antimony tartrate. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 66: 119-124.

Cornu C, Joseph P, Gaillard S, Bauer C, Vedrinne C, Bissery A, Melot G, Bossard N, Belon P, Lehot J-J. 2010. No effect of a homoeopathic combination of Arnica montana and Bryonia alba on bleeding, inflammation, and ischaemia after aortic valve surgery. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 69: 136-142.

Gallignani M, Ovalles F, Brunetto MdR, Burguera M, Burguera JL. 2005. Flow analysis-hydride generation-gas phase derivative molecular absorption spectrophotometric determination of antimony in oral homeopathic products (“Antimonium Tartaricum”) formulated under alcoholic medium. Talanta 68: 365-373.

McCarney R, Fisher P, Spink F, Flint G, van Haselen R. 2002. Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines by dowsing? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J R Soc Med 95: 189-191.

Panossian AG, Oganessian AS, Ambartsumian M, Gabrielian ES, Wagner H, Wikman G. 1999. Effects of heavy physical exercise and adaptogens on nitric oxide content in human saliva. Phytomedicine 6: 17-26.

Paris A, Gonnet N, Chaussard C, Belon P, Rocourt F, Saragaglia D, Cracowski JL. 2008. Effect of homeopathy on analgesic intake following knee ligament reconstruction: a phase III monocentre randomized placebo controlled study. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 65: 180-187.

Tamaki M, Nakashima M, Nishiyama R, Ikeda H, Hiura M, Kanaoka T, Nakano T, Hayashi T, Ogawa O. 2008. Assessment of clinical usefulness of Eviprostat for benign prostatic hyperplasia–comparison of Eviprostat tablet with a formulation containing two-times more active ingredients. Hinyokika Kiyo 54: 435-445.

Varshney JP, Naresh R. 2004. Evaluation of a homeopathic complex in the clinical management of udder diseases of riverine buffaloes. Homeopathy 93: 17-20.

Varshney JP, Naresh R. 2005. Comparative efficacy of homeopathic and allopathic systems of medicine in the management of clinical mastitis of Indian dairy cows. Homeopathy 94: 81-85.

Vickers A, McCarney R, Fisher P, van Haselen R. 2001. Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. British Homoeopathic Journal 90: 126-130.

Yildirim A, Mavi A, Kara AA. 2001. Determination of Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities of Rumex crispus L. Extracts. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49: 4083-4089.


48 thoughts on “Debunking the drug store: Stodal

  1. As a strong believer in evidence-based medicine, the evidence I’ve seen (from giving it to my family) is that this stuff works. Whether it works better than a syrupy placebo is worth investigating.

  2. Hi Dom,

    I agree that there is a therapeutic purpose for these kinds of treatments, especially with children and especially with (for example) viral infections that cannot be easily treated. I would put a reasonably large amount of money on there not being a difference between Stodal and a similarly-syrupy placebo, but I don’t think Boiron really has any motivation to do the trial…


  3. Oddly, I’d been coughing hard for 4 plus weeks; the result of a particularly viscious bronchitis. Dextromethorphan and Guaifenesin did nothing. This stuff stopped it cold in one shot. Odd but true.
    JP (DVM)

    • Hi JP,

      These are often the kinds of anecdotes that are cited in favour of the efficacy of alternative medicine. Bronchitis is caused by a virus, and so there is really very little that conventional medicine can do apart from treat symptoms (like the antitussives and expectorants that you mention). Viruses clear up on their own once the body fights them off. That tends to happen after a certain period of time, and the patient returns to normal health. This is called “regression to the mean”, where your body was always going to get better anyway and it happened to be while you taking medicines. So long as it tasted good!


      • Seems the author here has tons of knowledge about everything under the sun! But we as common people have tried medicines such as Stodal not once but multiple times on various age groups. It has always worked for us. We do not need to know about a bunch loose knowledge trying to prove otherwise. Maybe that’s why it’s said that half baked knowledge is worse than ignorance.

  4. I sometimes recommend it to customers so that they don’t go to other medications that are not approved for use in children. If I can get someone to take Stodal rather then giving their three year old NyQuil then that’s a net benefit in my opinion. Often parents just want to give their kids something, anything. I’d rather it be something innocuous (stodal is so diluted its practically just water) even if evidence for efficacy is lacking.

    • If you can justify recommending ineffective treatments then go for it. I don’t know where I fall on that. I think I would consider doing the same in the case of viral infections where patients want treatment that doesn’t exist.

  5. Best remedy I have ever used, I wished I had known about it when my children were younger. The evidence is simple- it works. I cannot recommend this product highly enough.

  6. My kid almost developed pneumonia last week. He was coughing all the time, had very rapid breathing, fever, blue circles around eyes. He is treated by a trusted homeopathy practitioner twice a year, and he gave us a “SOS” remedy just for such an occasion. It was in a form of small granules to be dissolved in water. I was not sure what it was, but I did some research, and it seems like it’s “Antimonium Tartaricum”.

    Speaking about “evidence based medicine”, guess what: it helped! The symptoms went away after day and a half. Of course, it’s not a double-blinded study with 500 subjects per group. But it worked. Two years ago, with very same symptoms, we ended up in a hospital for a week, where my kid was pumped with huge amount of steroids and antibiotics and couldn’t sleep as every minute some other kid was crying, and he had to have inhalations in the middle of the night! Total nightmare!!

    Don’t know about other ingredients of this syrup. If I will be able to verify they aren’t harmless, I’ll be willing to try it.

    • When studies are published in PubMed it generally means that they have been through a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that there are no flaws with the design on the study. The study you cite is methodologically-flawed and contains too few patients to be able to demonstrate any effect. For example, the statistical analysis simply compares two small samples (typically 15 patients in each of the treatment and placebo group) using t-tests, ignoring the fact that there are two sexes and a range of ages between 6 and 78 years!! I can’t even figure out which data the t-tests were performed on! It can’t have been the number of patients exhibiting symptoms…

      • I understand this research isn’t great. But these numbers of patients are widely acceptable in studies regarding long-term outcomes of orthopedic surgeries, for instance.
        I’m guessing if it was a widespread “mainstream” conventional drug, we would see more studies with higher quality.

        And yet, for dry cough:
        Day 0: 26 on Stodal, 22 on placebo.
        Day 3: 0 on Stodal, 22 on placebo.
        Similarly better outcomes for other cough-involved symptoms.

        I am still concerned about the amount of ingredients in this syrup and their mutual cancellation. Even so, It is still too early to completely dismiss or “debunk” it.

  7. You have picked one statistic out of many there, and there is nothing to suggest that that result is anything more than chance. If you understand the issues with limited sample sizes, then you must understand the absurdity of the statistics…? There are standard medical statistics that need to be used to take into account confounding factors, and none of them have been applied here.

    • There is also nothing to suggest that the syrup DOESN’T work AS WELL. Since, you know, there are no single study acceptable by statistical and medical standards to suggest that.
      All I’m saying, it MIGHT work, or MIGHT NOT. Neither is positively proven. I personally would give it a benefit of a doubt rather than debunk it.

      On a half-related note, same argument is used on the subject of vaccinations “absolutely not causing autism in children”. The big pharma rude and aggressive hidden reps argue that studies showing the opposite are seriously flawed or even faked, while there are no studies to support their claim that vaccines are perfectly safe, either.

      • Um, if I may chime in here (several months late), you do realize that the study you linked is published on the homeopathic company website that helps manufacture stodal, right?
        And that that same company supplied the entire trial?

        You’ve also got issues with how the patients are distributed (ages 6 to 78!? What!?), and with the Placebo patients showing more symptoms almost across the board, etc.

        Going back to stodal, I have seen patients who benefited from it, but it’s really because it has measurable quantities of 2 known expectorants.

  8. That’s one statistic out of 18, of which some show equally “divergent” results, and of which
    some seem bizarrely irrelevant (e.g. ‘breathlessness with exertion’ – I wouldn’t expect it to help
    with dandruff, either).

    That’s by the by. The one thing you cannot seriously suggest is that the result is down to chance.
    It’d be like flipping heads 26 times in a row then flipping tails 22 times in a row.

    Now, you’ve left out two ingredients from your list. They are “Syrup of Tolu” and “Syrup of Polygala”.
    Given that they are not given a “CH” then I’d guess that they are present in actual measurable quantities.
    They turn out to be expectorants. If the placebo does not contain these, then there might be an explanation
    for a most interesting result.

    • “Syrup of Tolu” and “Syrup of Polygala” are present as 19 grams / 100 grams of each:
      Looking these two up indicates that they are both active ingredients used in non-homeopathic remedies. Tolu is in the British Pharmacopoeia. Etc.

      Stodal works. Most likely because it contains significant quantities of active ingredients.

  9. Thanks for this post. I see most replies above provide anecdotal evidence, which sure are evidence – but not science-admissible for claims of efficacy. My boy has unwittingly been on this, no apparent relief for his symptoms – maybe worse, had some swelling about the eyes. This cleared up rapidly on cessation of this Stodal stuff, and a dose or two of conventional meds. I doubt either had a tangible effect, the duration implies the cold had nearly run it’s course and was due to break – but I thought I’d leave a counter-example for future comment readers.

  10. Hi,
    Somehow I have to agree to disagree. I use stodal. I previous used D-cold total which was very effective but u could feel that the meds were strong. And after the release of the following article i wanted to avoid it.

    But in my case no other cough syrup helped my constant coughs. I would cough for as long as 5mins continuously without any relief. D-Cold was the only med that was effective but not advisable. But then I was advised Stodal. Everything changed thereafter. Taking stodal makes me feel better the cough’s reduced in frequency and intensity. With stodal its reduced by 50% immediately. Montair is another effective med.

  11. Some of the ingredients are weird and I actually found this upon a google search while trying to find out more about what I was giving my children. I can tell you that it works. This I know. Some of the things don’t make sense to me either and I’m a little leary about finding out there’s a poison in there and I guess I will continue on my Google search to find out more about the effects of that ingredient but I can tell you from experience that this stuff really works.

    • Brandy, there are no poisons in this product. If you are referring to the homeopathic ingredients – then these have been diluted down to homeopathic proportions, which is to say that there is none.

  12. Katatrepsis,
    Its very easy to deny something, and find all the reasons that it’s not good. That’s the nature of the mind. You can also find all reasons that its good. You can find all these papers and studies,etc… the real thing is you own experiment. Get sick and try this Stodal. maybe then you will understand is it working or not. Now I see there is a lot of people who tried Stodal when they are sick, and you with bunch of papers, saying how its bad. =)

  13. Stodal works. We use it for treating our children as well as ourselves. The only negative is the sweetness of it seems to give my kids a little “sugar” jolt. I’ll take a happy sick child over an unnecessary dose of too strong drugs anyday. Besides, under 6 years old there is nothing suitable that has anywhere near the quick effect that Stodal does. Works quick and very, very well.

    • My daughter has been coughing so hard that it makes her throw up, every time she lies down to sleep. She is 15 months old and there is nothing approved for children this young. She hasn’t had a good nights sleep in two weeks… Honey and lemon was not working, and i am wary of giving her drugs, so I gave her only HALF THE RECOMMENDED DOSE of Stodal sugar free. Worked immediately, and she slept through the night without coughing. I only gave her half of a teaspoon! Most important thing, sleep will help boost her immune system to fight off whatever is making her sick. I’m grateful for this product. It WORKS, without a doubt.

  14. Stodal does indeed work. It help my 4 year old and I’m about to give it to my 12month old. I’m bothered by the beetles. For some reason beetles are commonly used for ‘natural’ colouring, most annoyingly in yogurt (so watch out if you are vegetarian). Strangely it is used in this syrup even though it is clear. It is sugar free so perhaps it makes it sweeter?

    There aren’t a lot of ‘natural’ options for cough suppressants. Honey water is like a joke right? The best other ‘natural’ solution that worked was juice from a young coconut. I find it difficult to crack a coconut and the juice only last a day.

    Thanks you so much for your investigation, valuable information.

  15. I used this in Paris last year for a cold, and brought a couple of bottles back for use here.

    The syrup made me feel better, and didn’t bother me like dextromethorphan does, on the occasions that I had need of its use.

    I wish I had more for my next cough.

  16. Always worked for me, and doesn’t leave my head foggy the next day like Colonia does. Plus, it’s not loaded with the nasty chemicals other brands are, like paraben preservatives and saccharine.

  17. My family and I have been using Stodal for more than ten years and I don’t let them use anything else. I’m no doctor but I can tell you now – so long as stodal is available we will not be using anything else. in fact that is how I got here I am actually loooking for a pharmacy that sells Stodal as it is in short supply where I live.

  18. Our family uses Stodal too and learned of it through our family doctor. It works and we love it! I’ve recommended it to a few friends and they’ve all found it to be effective too. It’s the only homeopathic childrens remedy I’ve been impressed with.

    • Jane, that’ll be because it’s not homeopathic. It contains large fractions of “Syrup of Tolu” and “Syrup of Polygala” which are active ingredients.

  19. Stodal works and has worked fine in eliminating my coughing problems. This analysis is biased and incomplete because it does not provide for any type of analysis on how the elements of Stodal combined act upon the symptoms.

  20. Hey! I am pleased that i found your blog. I am new to blogging but this very topic is just what I love to talk about. I read everything before I eat it or give it to my children. I came across this post now cause I have a very sick lil girl at home and looking for an alternative medicine to give her. I was told about this very product you talk about, so here I am looking at what each ingredient is…. and not to my surprise I will not give this to my children. You post was very helpful to me, thank you very much.

  21. My late husband suffered from a chronic cough and frequent bouts of pneumonia due to pulmonary fibrosis. He was prescribed Stodal when he contacted pneumonia while in Paris, France. We found it to be the only medication that relieved his cough, and he had tried numerous other medications prior to the Irish doctor prescribing it for him in France. I have given it to my sisters and son-in-law who also found it relieved their coughs and are now ordering it from Canada. I was unaware that Americans even knew of this product.

Leave a Reply to Dom Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s