OT truth in advertising

[Doug Miller]

As evaluated by their owners, the farmers.

Who know what treatment the animals received, and are undoubtedly using
subjective criteria to evaluate its success. That's *not* scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence takes the form of a double blind, placebo-controlled study
with objective evaluation criteria specificed in advance, wherein some
subjects receive the study medication and some receive a placebo, but neither
the subjects _nor_the_researchers_ know who received what, until the
conclusion of the study.

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

Invisible and unknown to the animal, but not to the person subjectively
evaluating the results of the "treatment".

 

[Doug Miller]

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.

You might find this to be interesting and informative:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html

 

[John Larkin]

`On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:03:03 +0100, Fermi

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.


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.

There are some nutrients in anything, if only from the fingerprints on
the surface.

This discussion, like all good discussions, circles back to
electronics. Looking at the physics, the classical electromagnetics
and the quantum mechanics, every signal, every voltage, and every
magnetic field couples into every circuit in your box, or in the whole
universe. The "engineering problem" then becomes to catagorize every
coupling into one of three catagories: too small to matter, big
trouble, and needs more analysis. Since the number of couplings in
even a small circuit is astronomical, it's crucial to quickly assign
as many as possible to the "too small to matter" category, which
sometimes takes active design decisions to make happen, like using a
ground plane on a circuit board.

Experience, if you have it, is usually enough to dismiss most
problems; a ribbon cable that drives relay coils won't have enough
crosstalk to glitch the loads. When experience fails, a rough mental
or back-of-the envelope calculation is often enough to show that some
hazard is orders of magnitude safe, so can be ignored. That leaves a
few cases that need serious, quantitative math or, lacking the tools,
equivalent experimenting.

As an engineer, I figure that getting 0.1% of my required potassium
intake from brown sugar is effectively zero. So I'll buy the sugar
that tastes best. The argument that vital nutrients have been refined
out of (or into) the sugar is qualitatively true but *quantitative*
nonsense. If you want potassium, eat a banana.

John

 

[John Larkin]

The most insidious addiction of all is the addiction to control, or
more accurately, the illusion of control, which afflicts all of the
rule-makers, who, unfortunately, get the sheeple to cosign their
insanity.

Yeah, the only thing worse than control is out-of-control.

John

 

[John Larkin]

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

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.

In addition to the basic theory being ludicrous, a lot of homeopathic
medicines have been diluted to the extent that it's unlikely that a
single molecule of the active ingredient makes it into a dose. That's
one reason why homeopathic medicines are not regulated... most are
pure water.

John

 

[Stephen J. Rush]

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.

The placebo effect doesn't require any active drug, just the patient's
belief. There is also the fact that arthritis is episodic. Someone has a
bad flareup, takes Substance X, and the pain recedes. It would have
receded without Substance X, just not as quickly. Have any of the
homeopaths subjected their potions to true double-blind testing?

 

[Jasen]

That's precisely the point. I *didn't* know what I was taking when I first
came across it. I didn't know its name or anything. I was just told that a
friend of a friend found it helpful for the same thing.

That sounds exaclty like the placebo effect.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[default]

Yeah, the only thing worse than control is out-of-control.

John

An out of control desire to control.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Wed, 23 May 2007 10:28:53 +0900 recorded as

Really? And I though energy was energy. Could you explain your
definition of energy?

Reference the Theory of the Conservation of Energy. If energy had only one
form, as you seem to imply, then this theory would be bunk. If that is not
what you are implying, you might want to be a little less vague. From what
you have posted, it appears that you believe energy is a nutrient.

 

[Eeyore]

realising it was homoeopathic but thinking more that it > was some 'herbal' thing.

The placebo effect doesn't require any active drug, just the patient's
belief.

I *didn't* 'believe in it' though !

There is also the fact that arthritis is episodic. Someone has a
bad flareup, takes Substance X, and the pain recedes. It would have
receded without Substance X, just not as quickly.

It wouldn't have receded in ten minutes for sure, which is how quickly the Rhus Tox acted.

Because I've been suffering from more severe pain with my arthritis recently and because the Rhus Tox can be a mild
nuisance to take sometimes (it needs to dissolve slowly in the mouth on a clean pallete) I have been using traditional
NSAIDs.

However since this discussion began I've gone back to the Rhus Tox to try it again. So far it's been fine. The effect
seems to last longer than the NSAIDs do. I woke up with some mild pain in one hip and it's now gone after taking some
Rhus Tox. I'll report back with further info.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

That sounds exaclty like the placebo effect.

It's my understanding that the 'placebo effect' requires belief in the drug.

Graham

 

[Doug Miller]

mildly > sceptical - definitely not

I *didn't* 'believe in it' though !



It wouldn't have receded in ten minutes for sure, which is how quickly the Rhus
Tox acted.

And that, my friend, is the clearest possible indication that the relief of
your symptoms is due to the placebo effect.

 

[Doug Miller]

It's my understanding that the 'placebo effect' requires belief in the drug.

Your understanding is incorrect. I guess you didn't read the article at the
link I posted yesterday.

 

[Eeyore]

And that, my friend, is the clearest possible indication that the relief of
your symptoms is due to the placebo effect.

If the placebo effect can actually 'make me better' then that's just fine.

As far as I'm concerned it's just a different kind of pill. I have no 'faith' invested in using it.
The absence of the negative side efects from NSAIDS is handy though.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Your understanding is incorrect. I guess you didn't read the article at the
link I posted yesterday.

I don't see universal agreement with your view on this point.

Graham

 

[Doug Miller]

I don't see universal agreement with your view on this point.

Well, no, of course not. People who market (or purchase) quack "treatments"
such as homeopathy, laetrile, Qi Gong, aromatherapy, and the like certainly
wouldn't agree. Scientists, on the other hand...

Here's the link I posted last night...
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html

And here's another that you'd find most informative, an article titled "Why
Bogus Therapies Seem to Work".
http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/beyer.html

 

[Doug Miller]

If the placebo effect can actually 'make me better' then that's just fine.

If that's working for you, great. I prefer to distinguish between "makes me
better" and "makes me feel better".

 

[Rich Grise]

As an engineer, I figure that getting 0.1% of my required potassium
intake from brown sugar is effectively zero. So I'll buy the sugar
that tastes best. The argument that vital nutrients have been refined
out of (or into) the sugar is qualitatively true but *quantitative*
nonsense. If you want potassium, eat a banana.

I use "lite" salt, which is half NaCl and half KCl, with traces of KI
and some anti-caking additives.

Surprisingly, it tastes even better than ordinary salt ("saltier" if that
makes any sense), probably becuase potassium is do darn healthy. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

The placebo effect doesn't require any active drug, just the patient's
belief. There is also the fact that arthritis is episodic. Someone has a
bad flareup, takes Substance X, and the pain recedes. It would have
receded without Substance X, just not as quickly. Have any of the
homeopaths subjected their potions to true double-blind testing?

Nah, they can't afford it. They don't have a government bureaucracy
shoveling taxpayer money into their research programs.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

If that's working for you, great. I prefer to distinguish between "makes me
better" and "makes me feel better".

In what way are they different, specifically?

Thanks,
Rich