[quote]larryb wrote:
Arguments of the form “well, it worked for me” can be refuted with the equally convincing “No, it didn’t.”[/quote]
how? placebo? why dont we have a discussion about that then?
here’s my question: what qualifies a placebo effect?
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
ScottL wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
im pretty sure the roots and purposes for acupuncture were solely pain alleviation. i just hope that acupuncture doesn’t get taken down with the many frauds who prescribe it for things it can’t do.
You’re not sure enough, and not correct.
Western medicine has been around for what…100 years? And we think we’re hot sh%t? Come back in 100 years and energy work e.g. acupuncture will still be around in some form (perhaps not needles, but there are many ways to work with energy now).
what are you talking about?
besides, mythologically, acupuncture was first learned of when a warrior got struck with an arrow he noticed a regular pain he had was eliminated.[/quote]
What am I talking about?
You said:
“im pretty sure the roots and purposes for acupuncture were solely pain alleviation. i just hope that acupuncture doesn’t get taken down with the many frauds who prescribe it for things it can’t do.”
I missed the word were and didn’t realize you were talking about its history. You’re still off base however.
Frozen Shoulder (adhesive capulsitis):
Dr. Manik G. Hiranandani - Consulting Dr Manik Hiranandani
This would have been around 400 BC:
“…how the physician Pien Cheuh used acupuncture to revive the Governor of the State of Kuo from a coma…”
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=1819
There are discussions on the history of acupuncture complete with 5 element theory here:
and here:
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=1819
that go back before christ. Complete with discussions of energy meridians.
Acupuncture is part of traditional chinese medicine (also includes herbs) and can do more then pain relief. Just not on the time scale e.g. asprin or instant coffee that we’d like. Of course we’d also like to continue our sad diet and lifestyle (hopefully not too many here) and take a pill and get better…
[quote]Gothic77 wrote:
larryb wrote:
Eh? You think I might have some financial interest in the failure of homeopathy?
I don’t know - are you part of Big Pharma or the FDA? I don’t trust either one of those organizations as far as I can throw them.[/quote]
No, I’m not. In fact, I’m quite annoyed at the FDA for their soft stance on homeopathy.
[quote]How the hell do you know it didn’t work FOR ME, FOR WUFWUGY, FOR ZEN, FOR SILENCER? You don’t. You can not tell me something doesn’t work for my body when I know full well it does. You’re not me! You’re not my body! You’re not in my head!
[/quote]
How do you know it works? Just because you took a medication and some condition improved or your perception of it improved, does not mean the medication is effective. Most medical problems get better without treatment.
[quote]
You probably never even tried homeopathy, so until you do, STFU.[/quote]
If I said I had taken it and it did nothing, would that change your mind? Please tell me how much and of what preparation would be a deadly dose (apart from any alcohol content). If that is reasonably affordable, I will gladly take it in front of witnesses.
Zen warrior wrote:
Or better yet, what makes your so uncomfortable to see other people spend their money on water[/quote]
[quote]larryb wrote:
Not just water - water that is marketed as medicine.[/quote]
Problem is, it’s not just water.
[quote]larryb wrote:
The homeopaths themselves admit that it is nothing but water, only they claim that this water has some “memory” of a substance in it, but for some reason, no memory of all the other substances it has been in contact with.
[/quote]
Water is purified beforehand, of course. And I have yet to see an homeopath say it’s “just water”. It’s water that has been treated to become a medecine
[quote]larryb wrote:
when coke sell water from the city duct in bottles?
You would compare selling expensive tap water to selling fake medicine?
[/quote]
The problem here is that you think it’s fake right off the bat, when I think it’s not. The point in that part of my message was, if you’re so offended by homeopathy’s supposed fraud, why don’t take actions against the others, and I took the example of the Dasani case when people thought they were getting spring water instead of tap water. Dasani isn’t marketed as spring water, but then again you don’t see homeoathic remedies in you regular pharmacy either.
[quote]larryb wrote:
I don’t think you such a good samaritan, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Eh? You think I might have some financial interest in the failure of homeopathy?
[/quote]
Ouch, that one’s a rather pathetic misunderstanding. I say you might have some financial interest in other medical cures, and that the interference of homeopathy might not be welcome. As in, are you a doctor/pharmacist or pharmaceutical stock-holder, that sort of things. Someone who’s so convinced in the deception of homeopathy, yet so knowledgeable in the field that he goes out of his way to warn people to not even try it? Possible, but I’m cynical. But then it’s just my nature, so don’t take that as an outright accusation.
[quote]larryb wrote:
Instead of staw man-ing others arguments, why don’t you bring something good, tangible and worth hearing in the debate, so we can discuss it. We’ve all said our opinion, but now it’s time for something more solid. Don’t shy out on me
I have refuted several arguments with evidence. Arguments of the form “well, it worked for me” can be refuted with the equally convincing “No, it didn’t.” [/quote]
That’s where I was pathetic. I clicked on ‘last’ instead of going through the rest of the thread, and ended up reading your last post only, so sorry about that last shot. Still the fact that both positive and negative feedback are anecdotal doesn’t mean that either is right or wrong. But is gaining popularity, among lay people as well as the medical community, so there is an effect of some sort, and since we both agreed that regular and homeopathic medecine do take advantage of the placebo effect, then when someone who doesn’t believe in homeopathy is cured, the treatment has been effective. What science can’t yet tell is in what way is it been effective. You brought interesting proof that the water-memory thesis was balderdash, and I agree. Everything else is also scientifical data, but none pertain to how homeopathy works. All of them as refuted one of the basics of homeopathy, but none put forth any hypothesis as to how it’s working. You see, that’s the problem I have with the scientifical evidence so far. There has been results, unexplanable with today’s technology and knowledge, so the best they can come up with is : the way you say it works has been proven wrong, therefore you must have gotten better by youself. They try a placebo on us by saying that since they don’t know the how, then it’s impossible. This kind of reasoning is just not satisfactory to me. I admit I’m biased since I do think homeopathy works, but such was not the case when I first tried it. I feel science should be a little more objective when it encounters the frontier of its knowledge such as is the case here. They should be opening new ways, not condemning ones. At least that’s how I view science.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
larryb wrote:
Arguments of the form “well, it worked for me” can be refuted with the equally convincing “No, it didn’t.”
how? placebo? why dont we have a discussion about that then?
here’s my question: what qualifies a placebo effect?[/quote]
I’m really not sure what you’re asking here. Do you mean what qualifies AS a placebo effect? If so, then from answers.com, “The beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient’s expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.” There is also a specific word or phrase for the perceived effects of treatment when those effects are due only to natural healing or improvement, but I can’t remember what it is offhand. That concept is often lumped in with “placebo effect”.
Geeszzzzz guys, let’s be sports and have a decent argument without name calling. Some are convince it works, some are convinced it doesn’t, and there is evidence supporting both. but do try to come up with logical message, it’s getting a bit of a penis-waiving contest of late.
Larry, about you’re last post to Gothic 77. Couldn’t answer earlier, I was writing an answer as it got posted 
You’re asking a bit much, don’t you think? Your message sounded like: if homeopathy doesn’t cure all, then it’s a fraud. It just that it might not be THE answer to your problem. I’m not saying it won’t either, but how can you require that as a proof? And nope, I not saying getting better or not is the proof a cure works, I’m saying if that particular cure doesn’t do it for you, don’t say homeopathy at large is B.S. Medecine might require some change, adjustment etc to be fully effective, and so does an homeopathic remedy. And, quite frankly, I don’t even think homeopathy is good for everyone. It’s one way to health, one path. As an American, I hope you take to heart the freedom of choice. As a complement to today’s strong words, I might add:" or do that"
By the way, seeing where this debate is going, all there is left to you is got see a serious homeopath with a good reputation for some ailment you might have, and give it a try. If you’re not pleasantly suprised, then at least it won’t have set you back as much as a regular pharmacy-based remedy.
You can produce effects on animals with…rescue remedy which is basically a homeopathic (bach flower)…the same thing might work with…I believe it would be arnica (but I’m no expert on homeopathy). Presumably you’d accept that animals would not be suceptable to belief?
Oh I forgot to give you an example: take a freaked out animal and administer a few drops of one of the above (rescue remedy or arnica) into their mouth…it’s mostly water, how could it hurt? Watch what happens.
And please no one freak out their animal just to test this.
[quote]larryb wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
larryb wrote:
Arguments of the form “well, it worked for me” can be refuted with the equally convincing “No, it didn’t.”
how? placebo? why dont we have a discussion about that then?
here’s my question: what qualifies a placebo effect?
I’m really not sure what you’re asking here. Do you mean what qualifies AS a placebo effect? If so, then from answers.com, “The beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient’s expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.” There is also a specific word or phrase for the perceived effects of treatment when those effects are due only to natural healing or improvement, but I can’t remember what it is offhand. That concept is often lumped in with “placebo effect”.[/quote]
From your last answer, a little food for thought. You might have missed it, but in a previous post I asked how was a placebo to effect a toddler or animal. I know that vets are getting pretty interested in the homeopathy field, yet none I know as tried to convince a cow that a pill will work. Same for a child who doesn’t have the necessary comprehension to do the required projection of the psyche to achieve the desired results (another definition of placebo) Goes right back to that ‘absence of proof isn’t a proof in itself I said earlier’. Science can’t explain the workings of homeopathy, and I’m ok with that, but don’t give me that lame-brain excuse of placebo anymore.
[quote]Zen warrior wrote:
You see, that’s the problem I have with the scientifical evidence so far. There has been results, unexplanable with today’s technology and knowledge, so the best they can come up with is : the way you say it works has been proven wrong, therefore you must have gotten better by youself.[/quote]
What are these unexplainable results (no anecdotal evidence please)? Those few successful clinical trials have not been repeatable, and often there were obvious flaws in methodology. If it works, why is that so difficult to show?
I would counter with the Bonneaux quote from homeowatch.org, “Permitting yourself to be deceived by a silly theory that was outdated and untenable even in the nineteenth century does not show an open or tolerant mind. It only shows you are gullible and an easy prey to smooth-talking quacks.”
[quote]ScottL wrote:
What am I talking about?
…[/quote]
thanks for clarification. i couldnt’ quite tell how you felt about acupuncture. and i know i know very little about it…just that it works, for what, i dont know.
[quote]larryb wrote:
How do you know it works? Just because you took a medication and some condition improved or your perception of it improved, does not mean the medication is effective. Most medical problems get better without treatment.
[/quote]
Tell that to my BACK, you idiot. I was in a frekaing car accident in January and I STILL have problems. Not all problems get better with time!
Tell it to my migraines. I still get them! I have been for the last 20 years! They don’t get better with time!
eyes rolling
[quote]Zen warrior wrote:
From your last answer, a little food for thought. You might have missed it, but in a previous post I asked how was a placebo to effect a toddler or animal. I know that vets are getting pretty interested in the homeopathy field, yet none I know as tried to convince a cow that a pill will work. Same for a child who doesn’t have the necessary comprehension to do the required projection of the psyche to achieve the desired results (another definition of placebo)[/quote]
You can’t just throw things like this out there. Please at least reference one published study.
For claims that are easy to prove, for which doing so would be profitable, and for which numerous attempts at proof have failed, absence of proof is a fairly strong clue.
or show that it has any effect at all.
The placebo effect is well established, and is a very reasonable explanation for any real or perceived benefits of homeopathy.
Larry, you’re getting nowhere with us, so why don’t you just shut up and leave it alone? What we do with our lives and how we spend our money is not your concern.
You refuse to be open-minded and understand that other ppl find success with alternative remedies. fine. Be that way.
Go lift some iron and get your frustration out that way.
[quote]Gothic77 wrote:
Tell that to my BACK, you idiot. I was in a frekaing car accident in January and I STILL have problems. Not all problems get better with time!
Tell it to my migraines. I still get them! I have been for the last 20 years! They don’t get better with time![/quote]
Why are you so angry? I said “most medical problems get better without treatment”. I don’t see how that could anger any reasonable person. You didn’t even disagree with it - you just became angry for no apparent reason.
Let me give you a taste of your own medicine:
You idiot. You said not all problems get better with time. I was in a freaking car accident seventeen years ago and I was perfectly FINE nine months later.
Tell it to my headaches. I no longer get them! I haven’t had one for the last eighteen years. They do get better with time!
[quote]If I said I had taken it and it did nothing, would that change your mind? Please tell me how much and of what preparation would be a deadly dose (apart from any alcohol content). If that is reasonably affordable, I will gladly take it in front of witnesses.
eyes rolling[/quote]
Why? I’m not joking here. Do you believe there are lethal does of homeopathic preparations or not? If you do, and if I can buy a supposedly lethal dose for less than a hundred bucks, I’ll do it.
[quote]Gothic77 wrote:
Larry, you’re getting nowhere with us, so why don’t you just shut up and leave it alone? What we do with our lives and how we spend our money is not your concern.
You refuse to be open-minded and understand that other ppl find success with alternative remedies. fine. Be that way.
Go lift some iron and get your frustration out that way.[/quote]
Well, someone reading this may become more “open-minded” and do some research for themselves instead of believing some misguided doctor or friend. Further argument will probably not increase the chances of that though, so I’ll say no more - unless you respond to my questions about lethal doses.
[quote]larryb wrote:
Zen warrior wrote:
You see, that’s the problem I have with the scientifical evidence so far. There has been results, unexplanable with today’s technology and knowledge, so the best they can come up with is : the way you say it works has been proven wrong, therefore you must have gotten better by youself.
What are these unexplainable results (no anecdotal evidence please)? Those few successful clinical trials have not been repeatable, and often there were obvious flaws in methodology. If it works, why is that so difficult to show?
I feel science should be a little more objective when it encounters the frontier of its knowledge such as is the case here. They should be opening new ways, not condemning ones. At least that’s how I view science.
I would counter with the Bonneaux quote from homeowatch.org, “Permitting yourself to be deceived by a silly theory that was outdated and untenable even in the nineteenth century does not show an open or tolerant mind. It only shows you are gullible and an easy prey to smooth-talking quacks.”[/quote]
Unexplanable results are people feeling well when scientists tell them they should not. I refuse to refer systematically to that as a placebo effect. It’s just a convenient cover for their lack of proof.
I so totally agree with your de Bonneaux quote, yet things that work might be based on some foundations that might later be proven faulty. Does it mean the results are desultory? Not really.
Example: Mendelson was right with is theory on genetics, yet he manipulated his data on beans to prove his hypothesis right. When others started to reproduce his experiments, they foud that they didn’t always have the prescribed results. That led to the conquest of genetics, and that knowledge might never have been gaped if Mendelson didn’t think he was right. But the science of his time didn’t have the means to prove it. We now know that he was mostly right. He was experimenting with beans you see, and that’s a tangible, solid evidence. If its green, it’s green, if it’s yellow, it’s yellow. but how come I can have yellow when I planted green? The rest is history.
Someone is sick, takes an homeopathic remedy and gets better. No other changes that might explain it, not even natural sickness lenght/cycle. Am I such a gullible and easy prey for smooth-talking quacks for saying that there is an effect (being cured), even if the basics are faulty? There is something that remains to be explained, that all I’m saying…
[quote]larryb wrote:
Zen warrior wrote:
From your last answer, a little food for thought. You might have missed it, but in a previous post I asked how was a placebo to effect a toddler or animal. I know that vets are getting pretty interested in the homeopathy field, yet none I know as tried to convince a cow that a pill will work. Same for a child who doesn’t have the necessary comprehension to do the required projection of the psyche to achieve the desired results (another definition of placebo)
You can’t just throw things like this out there. Please at least reference one published study.[/quote]
Why? Am I putting people in danger from ‘just water’? If that were so, it wouldn’t worry you so much. As for study, I’m gonna take what seems like a convenient excuse, but I’ve seen it all on tv. Sounds corny I know, but it was on TLC or Discovery channel, one of those documentaries from BBC.
But anyway, what’s so scandalous it needs a study? That some veterinarians have a growing interest in homeopathy? Think not. That young children and animals are not subject to placebo effect. It should be common knowledge for someone who seems to have research a topic as well as you seem to. Nothing controversial there, or I fail to see your point.
[quote]larryb wrote:
Zen warrior wrote:
Goes right back to that ‘absence of proof isn’t a proof in itself I said earlier’.
For claims that are easy to prove, for which doing so would be profitable, and for which numerous attempts at proof have failed, absence of proof is a fairly strong clue.
Science can’t explain the workings of homeopathy,
or show that it has any effect at all.
and I’m ok with that, but don’t give me that lame-brain excuse of placebo anymore.
The placebo effect is well established, and is a very reasonable explanation for any real or perceived benefits of homeopathy. [/quote]
You’re right about what placebo is, but you’ve failed to explain why it’s such a ‘reasonable explanation’ And you can’t counter the children/animals effect too. There is something more about homeopathy than placebo. I’m ready to belive studies that say homeopathy doesn’t work when you post one that’ll be satisfactory. By that I mean NOT attack the beliefs or results of it, but rather that shows without doubt that if person A and B are ill, and one takes a placebo and the other an homeopathic remedy that they have the same results. Double blind, solidly established study with some credentials as to the protocol used and experimentation, if you will.
All you’ve posted so far was good up to a point, but they aimed mainly at saying: “things don’t work like that, therefore you’re not feeling well, or deluding yourself”. Let’s assume I feel better and am not deluding myself. What has happened? By the way, that’s what I’m refering to when I say lack of tangible proof…
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
ScottL wrote:
What am I talking about?
…
thanks for clarification. i couldnt’ quite tell how you felt about acupuncture. and i know i know very little about it…just that it works, for what, i dont know.[/quote]
Chemical detox for one. I had that done to quit smoking. Bellvue hospital has been using it for detoxing crack heads and junkies with very good results. Worked very well for the accute detox of nicotine. Local inflamation and pain reduction is another I have experienced with very good results. The practitioner that I go to is also an M.D., and steers clear of the mystical/mythical stuff that some accupuncture practitioners promote. He also said recently that a large number of complaints revolve around the practitioners leaving a few needles in and the site becomes irritated and infected, not necessarily that the treatment was ineffective or inappropriate.
[quote]larryb wrote:
Why are you so angry? I said “most medical problems get better without treatment”. I don’t see how that could anger any reasonable person. You didn’t even disagree with it - you just became angry for no apparent reason.
[/quote]
I’m frustrated and succumbed to name calling. I won’t do it again.
Your lack of intelligence and open-mindedness bugs me. But why do I expect any different? You’ve not proven anything to me. Yet we HAVE proven that homeopathy works. Maybe you don’t care to try it and see. Fine. Then don’t. But leave us alone about it.
Believe what you want, son. You’re not convincing me.
Well, goody for you. I still get them and probably will my entire life. No Western medicine can do anything for it except mask the problem by treating the symptom. Homeopathy treats the PROBLEM.
But here’s the clincher… NOBODY WILL SELL IT TO YOU! You have to have a legitimate problem for any homeopath to treat you. You can’t be given a lethal dose because they don’t sell the higher concentrations in the health food store. You have to be treated and it has to be given to you by the doctor. He may send you home w/ a small packet of it for another dose, but you can not overdose on a high concentration. They won’t give it to you!
What? Do you think this stuff is like crack?
[quote]larryb wrote:
so I’ll say no more - [/quote]
You’ll shut up? Really? Well, jeez, I shouldn’t have answered your question if that’s all it took to get you to quit talking about something you know nothing about.
[quote]Gothic77 wrote:
Yet we HAVE proven that homeopathy works.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but this statement is false. You’ve shown evidence that it may be effective in some cases, not proven that it works.
Larryb is correct in that the placebo effect may be at work.
In response to children and animals - often handling them in the manner needed to deliver medicine will calm them down. Ever held on firmly to an agitated animal for a minute and then let go? They’re calmer, possibly because you’ve exerted dominance. I’m no animal expert, but I’ve delt with dozens of cats and dogs while volunteering at humane societies, and this is (almost) always the case. Don’t need any pills. I don’t have kids, so I can’t speak on that much, though I remember sitting down and shutting up when my mom came with the Robitussin and a stern look in her eyes.
I’m sure that the treatments did work well for those who are saying they do. I’m not sure what it is that’s helping, and the exact cause may never be teased out. The whole treatment is usually necessary no matter what schema you’re using. Just like chiropractic won’t work without soft tissue management and corrective exercises, or heart surgery won’t help much if the patient lights up in the hospital bed.
Gothic, what is the cause of your migranes? How does what you take affect the root cause? I’m just curious, my brother gets them too, and the medication is a little expensive. Maybe homeopathy can help him too. He’s an engineer, though, he’d need a causal relationship to even consider giving it a try.
-Dan