OT truth in advertising

[John Popelish]

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. ;-)

My wife often gets leg cramps. We keep a shaker of KCl
(salt substitute) on the dresser. It usually takes less
than a minute for the cramps to start to fade after she
shakes a bit on her tongue. Talk about a vital nutrient!

 

[Rich Grise]

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.

This raises another interesting question - how do you set up a
double-blind experiment to test the effectiveness of placebo? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

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.

This guy claims to know ALL of the answers:
http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html

And, for what it's worth, it's working for me, but it's impossible to
prove anything - it can only be experienced directly.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

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

Here:
--------------<quote>--------------
Subject: Re: OT truth in advertising
From: Eeyore <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:23:13 GMT

I didn't say you were. But it's not possible to rule it out, except by
conducting a scientifically-designed double-blind study. It's simply
impossible to rule out placebo effect on one's own self, because you
*know* what you're taking.

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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [emphasis mine]

Graham
--------------</quote>--------------

That, apparently, was all it took. It kind of indicates that you're a lot
more suggestible than you seem to think.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

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

The very fact that studies need to be "double-blind" is pretty much prima
facie evidence that the placebo effect is real.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Doug Miller]

In what way are they different, specifically?

The former means fixing a problem, whereas the latter is simply relieving (or
masking) its symptoms. Google "laetrile" for many sad examples of the serious
consequences which can attend confusing the two.

 

[Doug Miller]

This raises another interesting question - how do you set up a
double-blind experiment to test the effectiveness of placebo? ;-)

Homeopathic practitioners don't believe that their treatments are placebos.
They believe that they are active, effective medications. A randomized
placebo-controlled double-blind study of a homeopathic treatment would be
conducted in exactly the same manner as a similar study of any other
treatment, and evaluated according to the same criterion: does the
investigational treatment provide positive results at a rate that is
significantly greater than the placebo treatment?

 

[Doug Miller]

The very fact that studies need to be "double-blind" is pretty much prima
facie evidence that the placebo effect is real.

Of course it is; I never said otherwise.

 

[Rich Grise]

Homeopathic practitioners don't believe that their treatments are placebos.
They believe that they are active, effective medications. A randomized
placebo-controlled double-blind study of a homeopathic treatment would be
conducted in exactly the same manner as a similar study of any other
treatment, and evaluated according to the same criterion: does the
investigational treatment provide positive results at a rate that is
significantly greater than the placebo treatment?

Actually, I wasn't asking about homeopathy - I was thinking more along the
lines of getting something other than anecdotal evidence of the efficacy
of the placebo itself.

Are there any published studies on the actual "placebo effect"?

And, the idea of doing a double-blind to test placebo was intended to be
kind of a joke; apparently, it is a very lame one. )-;

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Doug Miller]

Actually, I wasn't asking about homeopathy - I was thinking more along the
lines of getting something other than anecdotal evidence of the efficacy
of the placebo itself.

Are there any published studies on the actual "placebo effect"?

Yes, there are. Google is your friend here.

 

[John Larkin]

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. ;-)

It tastes bitter to me. I guess we're calibrated different.

John

 

[Mark Zenier]

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.

Rhus is the Sumac family. That includes Poison Oak and Poison Ivy.
It would not surprise me if a very small amount of an extract of those
would be biologically active.

Mark Zenier [email protected]
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

 

[Daniel Mandic]

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...

Hi Doug!


Scientist say to me, cars need a new super Catalysator which is much
more healthy to me (obviously not. it's cutting it even deeper into my
lunges, IMO), without even knowing how the lunges work.

A pill cannot reapir wrong-minded moves. Self-lying is widely accepted
in community and well known. If you do healthy things your body and
mind will grow. If you quench it out and feed it with pills and such,
just your reserves will be activated.

Older ppl which helps such pills, should take them, as it is in his/her
mind to choose how strong the drug should be for (against? hmmmm,
reminding me always to the metal-stripe which cannot be bend to be
straight, less you could pull/take it out, bend it some more to
opposite side and pull it back where it was, to have it straight on the
plate/stick etc. E.g. BallPen -twisted holder!.) the pains...



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Thu, 24 May 2007 13:53:23 -0400 recorded as
<[email protected]> looks like John Popelish

My wife often gets leg cramps. We keep a shaker of KCl
(salt substitute) on the dresser. It usually takes less
than a minute for the cramps to start to fade after she
shakes a bit on her tongue. Talk about a vital nutrient!

<Homer>

Mmmmm, potassium!

</Homer>

 

[john jardine]

[...]

Actually, I wasn't asking about homeopathy - I was thinking more along the
lines of getting something other than anecdotal evidence of the efficacy
of the placebo itself.

Are there any published studies on the actual "placebo effect"?

And, the idea of doing a double-blind to test placebo was intended to be
kind of a joke; apparently, it is a very lame one. )-;

Thanks,
Rich

I think one shunned researcher is called "Beunviste". Something to do with
'memory' in water.
BBC did him as part of a series on scientific 'heretics'. Series covered
other people like Laithwaite etc.

 

[Doug Miller]

Rhus is the Sumac family. That includes Poison Oak and Poison Ivy.
It would not surprise me if a very small amount of an extract of those
would be biologically active.

It might well be. The trouble, though, is that homeopathic "remedies" are
diluted so much that absolutely *none* of the original substance remains,
rendering the question of its biological activity completely moot. They're
basically pure water. Google is your friend here; if you search on "rhus tox"
you will quickly discover that the normal homeopathic dose is "30X". More
diligent Googling will show you the meaning of 30X as used by homeopaths: X
means 10-to-1 dilution, and 30 means the dilution is repeated a total of 30
times.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the molecular weight of the
supposed active ingredient is, say, 100. Thus one mole of the substance weighs
100 grams. The chemist Avodgadro showed, in the 16th century, that one mole of
any substance contains 6 * 10^23 molecules of that substance. (Google
"Avogadro's number", or look that up in any chemistry textbook, for a full
explanation.) Now suppose we start out with a kilogram of the original
substance. That means we have ten moles, or 10 * 6 * 10^23 = 6 * 10^24
molecules.

Dilute that 10:1 one time, and retain a portion equal to the original volume.
You now have 6 * 10^23 molecules of the original substance in that portion.

Do that twenty-three more times -- you have six molecules.

Do it one more time -- you have a 60% probability of having one molecule.

That's only 25 dilutions. We still have five to go before we've reached the
"30X" level, and by the time we get there, it's guaranteed that it's so
dilute, that any random sample, of equal volume to the original, drawn from
the entire diluted batch has only 6 chances in a million of containing even
ONE MOLECULE of the original substance.

It would surprise me greatly if that proved to be biologically active.

 

[Doug Miller]

It might well be. The trouble, though, is that homeopathic "remedies" are
diluted so much that absolutely *none* of the original substance remains,
rendering the question of its biological activity completely moot. They're
basically pure water. Google is your friend here; if you search on "rhus tox"
you will quickly discover that the normal homeopathic dose is "30X". More
diligent Googling will show you the meaning of 30X as used by homeopaths: X
means 10-to-1 dilution, and 30 means the dilution is repeated a total of 30
times.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the molecular weight of the
supposed active ingredient is, say, 100. Thus one mole of the substance weighs
100 grams. The chemist Avodgadro showed, in the 16th century, that one mole of

Oops -- 19th century.

 

[Doug Miller]

I think one shunned researcher is called "Beunviste". Something to do with
'memory' in water.

You're probably thinking of Jacques Benveniste (correct spelling posted for
the convenience of anyone wishing to do a Google search).

 

[Eeyore]

It might well be. The trouble, though, is that homeopathic "remedies" are
diluted so much that absolutely *none* of the original substance remains,
rendering the question of its biological activity completely moot. They're
basically pure water. Google is your friend here; if you search on "rhus tox"
you will quickly discover that the normal homeopathic dose is "30X". More
diligent Googling will show you the meaning of 30X as used by homeopaths: X
means 10-to-1 dilution, and 30 means the dilution is repeated a total of 30
times.

The stuff I take is 6X. There's plenty of active ingredient in it. You can distinctly
taste something in fact and it's not just the sugar.

The idea that homoeopathic remedies increase in strength through dilution is one step too
far for me but hey, I don't have to believe in it.

30X is absolutely not the 'normal' strength btw.

Graham

 

[Doug Miller]

The stuff I take is 6X. There's plenty of active ingredient in it.

6X means it's been diluted a MILLION TO ONE. "Plenty of active ingredient" is
simply not possible.

You can
distinctly
taste something in fact and it's not just the sugar.

At a million-to-one dilution, whatever you're tasting cannot possibly be the
"active ingredient".

The idea that homoeopathic remedies increase in strength through dilution is
one step too
far for me but hey, I don't have to believe in it.

Yes, you do -- otherwise it doesn't work.

30X is absolutely not the 'normal' strength btw.

Appears to me that it is, but even if it's not, that's immaterial. The basic
point remains that homeopathic ingredients are diluted far beyond the point at
which any biological activity that they might originally have had could
possibly remain. At any dilution beyond 25X, *none* of the original substance
is left.