OT truth in advertising

[Eeyore]

The experimenters only record the results that match their expectations.

These aren't experiments. It's commercial homoeopathy. If it didn't work they probably wouldn't get paid.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

That IS the placebo effect.

The placebo effect requires you to believe they would make you feel better. I was agnostic on the point.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Thus the placebo effect.

So I'm imagining my arthritis ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Because they *think* it's effective?

Because the animals get better.

There wouldn't be a lot of point otherwise would there ?

Graham

 

[Fermi]

Darker sugars are *more* refined.

I wrote "darker and less refined", not "darker".
The followup by Jack supports what I wrote.

The first-press "turbinado" sugar is
very light in color and flavor, great in coffee and for cooking, and
is most "natural." They re-dissolve it two or three times, splatter it
on the sides of huge spinning drums, and wash it with hot water to
make it whiter. The last stage is crystallization.

The stuff that they wash out is an amber liquid. They boil that down
to make molasses. To make brown sugar, they add molasses to white or
amber sugar. It's quite synthetic.

Yes, and although dark does not qualify as "less refined".

My ex-daddy-in-law was a Cajun sugarcane farmer and part owner of a
cane mill, which is how I know this stuff.

Is this top trumps? Ok, my great great gandfather *invented* sugar. Before
that people had to eat coal. Do I win?

p.s. I made that last bit up, don't feel the need to tell me about your
coal mining relatives.

 

[John Larkin]

s/create/release/

Cheers!
Rich

I'm a simple engineer, not a philosopher. Numbers matter, words don't.

John

 

[John Larkin]

I wrote "darker and less refined", not "darker".
The followup by Jack supports what I wrote.


Yes, and although dark does not qualify as "less refined".

Is this top trumps? Ok, my great great gandfather *invented* sugar. Before
that people had to eat coal. Do I win?

p.s. I made that last bit up, don't feel the need to tell me about your
coal mining relatives.

Well, there is real life out there, beyond Wikipedia, you know.

And if, for some bizarre reason, you want to get your minerals from
suger, buy the dark brown stuff, the most highly refined type. All
that boiling down concentrates the minerals, and likely destroys the
vitamins and enzymes.

John

 

[Fermi]

I wonder if there is not a large middle group who are neither
out-and-out drunkards not interested in their health or anything else
except the next hit of booze, and neither the total abstainers.

I'd say there were four groups:
Those who read labels and understand them and use them to inform choice
Those who read them, are baffled and are anxious because they want to make
the right choice but lack the capacity.
Those who understand them but don't care.
Those that don't understand them and don't care.

No, not four.
Those who are oblivious to the existance of nutritional labels.

Ok, there are more than four groups. I could probably think of many more
and begin catagorising them into sub-groups, so I'll stop now. Now I
remember why I've always hated generalisations.

Folk who have a dependence on alcohol and are trying to moderate their
usage. A campaign to show the health benefits might tip many into
overindulgence and past the point of no return.

No, I wasn't suggesting a campaign to promote the benefits, that's already
been done
http://www.ivo.se/guinness/health.html

I used to self-medicate with alcohol, but took supplements to
ameliorate some consequential health deficits. I would not have been
persuaded by any campaigns, only because I have had a lifetime
interest in nutrition and human biology/physiology. But folk without
my interest could so easily rationalise some positive message about
slight health effects of booze into consuming more than they can cope
with.

Just look at all the folk quaffing red wine in the belief that the net
benefits outweigh the net damage.

It's common for people to grasp at any justification they can find to
support doing whatever they want. The majority of these won't be affected
by the presence of nutritional labels, they'll find another justification.

 

[Fermi]

Well, there is real life out there, beyond Wikipedia, you know.

Really? Nebraska isn't in Canada?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/26/wikipedia_school_lawsuit/

This exhange caught my eye for some reason

"Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not
enough oxygen in your blood!"

Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?"

Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper
about it for my biology class at school!"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters/

Sorry, where I was raised anyone using "my relation/friend/neighbour is an
expert so I know about this" would be subject to severe ridicule. It's much
easier than providing evidence and difficult for others to verify the
veracity.

And if, for some bizarre reason, you want to get your minerals from
suger

I never claimed to. I only entered this thread when you posted

"Valuable nutrients? In sugarcane juice? Can you name some?"

Which seemed to imply there weren't any nutrients.

, buy the dark brown stuff, the most highly refined type.

Seriously, I rarely use sugar.

All
that boiling down concentrates the minerals, and likely destroys the
vitamins and enzymes.

Fair enough, you would have to eat an unhealthy quantity of unrefind sugar
to get significant nutrients (although every bit counts, 0.1% RDA is still
better than 0%). However, molasses is a very good source of minerals.

 

[Doug Miller]

So I'm imagining my arthritis ?

You know, I'm really having a hard time understanding where you acquired the
idea that I believed, or was suggesting, that you were imagining your ailment
-- but to answer your question: No. You're imagining that the homeopathic
stuff is doing anything about it.

 

[Doug Miller]

Because the animals get better.

As evaluated by the people who are giving them the treatment.

There wouldn't be a lot of point otherwise would there ?

There isn't a lot of point in homeopathic treatment anyway, other than the
placebo effect. The supposed effectiveness of homeopathic treatment has not
been established by scientific studies.

 

[Rich Grise]

I'd say there were four groups:
Those who read labels and understand them and use them to inform choice
Those who read them, are baffled and are anxious because they want to make
the right choice but lack the capacity.
Those who understand them but don't care.
Those that don't understand them and don't care.

No, not four.
Those who are oblivious to the existance of nutritional labels.

Ok, there are more than four groups. I could probably think of many more

There are two types of people:
Those who categorize people into groups, and those who don't.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

The placebo effect requires you to believe they would make you feel better. I was agnostic on the point.

Right up until it worked, right? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

So I'm imagining my arthritis ?

Not necessarily, but by taking something that you _believed_ would
relieve the pain, you blocked it out of your perceptions. It's somewhat
akin to hypnosis, which has been documented to show dramatic effects.

In fact, I've entertained thoughts of marketing "Placebin", with the
slogan: "It can relieve what ails you" or some such.

What'd be really fun would be to make some phony Viagra, sell it on the
black market, and see what happens. ;-) (when you're selling it to the
sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomer, you say something like, "Careful, this is
REALLY REALLY powerful - if your erection lasts longer than a few hours,
call an ambulance!"

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

You know, I'm really having a hard time understanding where you acquired the
idea that I believed, or was suggesting, that you were imagining your ailment
-- but to answer your question: No. You're imagining that the homeopathic
stuff is doing anything about it.

Well...... here goes.

If a homoeopathic substance can get rid of pain from arthritis, and if we are to believe you that
homoeopathic remedies do nothing, then, for my pain to have been effectively 'treated' with Rhus Tox,
only 2 possibilities exist.

1. I was imagining my pain and I don't really have arthritis.

2. My pain did go away due to the power of 'auto-suggestion' or 'placebo' or whatever.


Now it seems to me that option 2. is such an astonishing concept in iits own right that I felt
inspired to ask you that question.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

As evaluated by the people who are giving them the treatment.

As evaluated by their owners, the farmers.

There isn't a lot of point in homeopathic treatment anyway, other than the
placebo effect. The supposed effectiveness of homeopathic treatment has not
been established by scientific studies.

How can an animal have the placebo effect when the admistering of the active agent in drinking water
was both invisible and unknown.

http://www.bahvs.com/

The Association was formed in 1982, to advance the understanding, knowledge and practice of veterinary
homeopathy (homoeopathy / homœopathy). It aims to stimulate professional awareness of homeopathy and
to encourage and provide for the training of veterinary surgeons in the practice of homeopathy. It is
an open forum, for the various differing approaches to the subject of veterinary homeopathy and its
application, allowing for constructive interchanges of ideas.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Right up until it worked, right? ;-)

I was intruiged by its action.

Graahm

 

[Eeyore]

Not necessarily, but by taking something that you _believed_ would
relieve the pain, you blocked it out of your perceptions.

But I didn't believe it would ! Where did I ever say I did ?

It was one of those "it can't do any harm so lets' try it " moments. In fact I was
under the impression at first that it was some 'herbal' thingy. Ah yes, because of the
Weleda brand name (Swiss).

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I was intruiged by its action.

p.s. That was the point at which I asked what it was. My g/f gave me the name of it but it wasn't til later that
we both discovered it was a homoeopathic remedy.

So it got rid of my pain despite me - not even knowing what it was - being mildly sceptical - definitely not
realising it was homoeopathic but thinking more that it was some 'herbal' thing.


Graham

 

[Doug Miller]

If a homoeopathic substance can get rid of pain from arthritis, and if we are
to believe you that homoeopathic remedies do nothing,

First, I did not say that. I said that their supposed effectiveness has not
been demonstrated in scientific studies. Failure to demonstrate effectiveness,
and demonstrating ineffectiveness, are not the same thing.

Second, you don't have to believe me, either. You can do your own research and
see for yourself that there is no scientific confirmation of the supposed
effectiveness of homeopathic treatments. There *is* ample scientific
confirmation of the effectiveness of, for example, antibiotics in treating
bacterial infection, or radiation therapy in treating certain cancers. If
there's scientific confirmation -- in the form of a placebo-controlled double
blind study -- of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in treating
anything, it shouldn't be too hard to find.

then, for my pain to have been effectively
'treated' with Rhus Tox,
only 2 possibilities exist.

1. I was imagining my pain and I don't really have arthritis.

2. My pain did go away due to the power of 'auto-suggestion' or 'placebo' or
whatever.


Now it seems to me that option 2. is such an astonishing concept in iits own
right that I felt inspired to ask you that question.

That shouldn't be an "astonishing concept" at all. You don't seem familiar
with the placebo effect, the power of suggestion, or the amazing power of the
mind to heal the body; perhaps you should visit your local library.