VegForLife
Member posted 06-23-99 05:40 PM
“The most recent clinical study that I know of (which I read a blurb about on Dr. Dean Edell’s website a few months ago) indicated that acupuncture appeared to have a slight edge over placebo in dealing with certain types of headaches, but had no edge over placebo for any other ailments. While it’s impossible to conduct a standard double-blind study on acupuncture (it’s fairly obvious whether or not somebody is poking you with needles), the study apparently made us of “sham acupuncture” for the placebo, and was reviewed.”
Actually, there’s a lot one can do. For instance, is it really necessary to have a trained professional give the acupuncture? If acupuncture is mostly the placebo effect, it seems like some guy off the street should be able to do as good a job as someone with years of training. Also, does acupuncture actually have a significant effect? If so, then perhaps it should be recommended, even if it is a placebo effect. After all, if the placebo works, you might as well use it.
JillGat
Moderator posted 06-26-99 10:28 PM
“Do people’s gullibility stem from the relationship to vaccines? I mean, after all, a vaccine is a diluted strand of the germs causing the disease, right? So the dilution gives some immunity?
Just wondering if the homeopathetics (pun) use that analogy…”
I think this is one the main problem with homeopathy. Vaccines (which I suppose are sort of a type of homeopathy) work, so that is seen as proof that all homeopathic remedies work. People are looking at an analogy and mistaking for a proof. Vaccines work by stimulating the immune system. Has anyone shown any mechanism through which other forms of homeopathy would do something similar? And would we want them to? I’ve heard of homeopathic remedies for allergies. But allergies result when the immune system is **over**stimulated. How would stimulating it more help?
StormBorn
Member posted 07-15-99 12:18 AM
“So why not just believe you don’t have the ailment in the first place?”
Because people don’t have that fine a control over their unconsciousness. I imagine that there are some acrophobic people that become very agitated if they have nothing but glass between them and a several hundred foot drop, but put wood between them and the drop and the fall, and they’re fine. So why can’t they just imagine wood to be covering the glass? Because they just can’t. Placebo have an analogous effect: they keep patients from worrying about their sickness “looking” at their problem (because they think it’s being taking care of) and so their stress levels go down and their immune systems become stronger.
AuraSeer
Member posted 07-17-99 02:13 PM
“Of course, a magnet is a very benign example; whether it helps or not, it’s unlikely to cause any additional harm. The same cannot be said for certain herbs, like the St. Johns Wort mentioned above. But if something can be shown to not be harmful, and it makes the patient feel better, I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be tried. “
If you believe that magnets help you, even though you know of no mechanism for such a thing, why don’t you believe that magnets might harm you? After all, if magnets have the power to affect the body, why is a beneficial effect more probable than negative? Hasn’t there been speculation that electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer? (Not that I’m convinced of that phenomenon, either).
Tominator2
Member posted 07-21-99 09:14 AM
“If A causes B, the occurrence of A is inevitably followed by B.”
Pregnancy rarely follows sex, so according to your definition, sex doesn’t cause pregnancy.
“Doctors have been so wrong, so often it’s hard to take them all that seriously. “
I’m not basing my beliefs on faith in doctors; doctors are certainly capable of being wrong. It’s the scientific method that I trust. The examples you cited were never supported by the scientific method. (Except AZT, and having one someone with disputed expertise claim that a tested drug is ineffective doesn’t convince me).
Tominator2
Member posted 07-22-99 03:06 PM
“Yet the whole thing fell apart. In this case it was simple - people were eating less junk food and more bran. Of course their cholesterol went down.”
Tominator2
Member posted 07-26-99 04:22 PM
“in reply to David B.
quote:
And your point is what? That some scientists made a mistake and other scientists caught it? Well, that’s what the scientific method is all about!
My point is that a medical study that conrformed (as far as anybody could tell at the time) to all the rules, still got the wrong answer.”
They didn’t get the wrong answer; consumption of bran, when accompanied by a decrease in consumption of high cholesterol food, lowers cholesterol. It’s just that that answer was misinterpreted. Any time you hear something like this, think about what it means. Is olive oil healthy? Well, compared to more saturated oils, it is. But compared to no oil at all, it isn’t.
“Phrenology was praised by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Mann and the Boston Medical Society” and “It remained popular, especially in the United States, throughout the 19th century”.
Truth is not a popularity contest. If you want to claim that phrenology was accepted as scientific fact, find a study supporting it.
Holly
Member posted 07-23-99 09:19 AM
(in response to Tominator2
“Bleeding was accepted practice because doctors at that time poorly understood physiology; as new knowledge was gathered it became increasingly clear that bleeding is ineffective. The technique then eventually fell into disfavor.”
Doctors have recently realized that in many situation, bleeding is useful. It’s just that this process was applied indiscriminately, which is exactly the problem with homeopathy. Homeopathy takes the principle of dilution, which works for vaccines, and applies it to every other problem. It’s that whole “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail” problem.
David B
Moderator posted 07-25-99 07:14 AM
“quote:
Actually, I think homeopathy is a bunch of junk, too.
I’m glad to hear it. So then why are we having this discussion”
Because it’s important to know not only **whether** homeopathy is a con, but also **how** we know it’s a con. Our educational system does a poor job of explaining the scientific method, and if Tominator2 and others haven’t been convinced of its importance, then we should try clarifying the issue. By making sure that we give rational principles in support of our claim that homeopathy is a con, Tominator2 is making sure that we don’t fall into the trap that homeopathic proponents have fallen into; that is, believing that truth is the same thing as what “seems” true.
-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *
from the previous millenium (I DO understand how it works! That’s why I’m just a little sarcastic):