OT truth in advertising

^^^^^^

s/create/release/

Cheers! Rich

So, you only eat live wheat? Doesn't shredding it kill it?

Thanks, Rich

Thus the placebo effect.

Because they *think* it's effective?

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

Graham

came across it. I didn't

it helpful for the same

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

Graham

came

So I'm imagining my arthritis ?

Graham

Because the animals get better.

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

Graham

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.

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

John

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

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.

No, I wasn't suggesting a campaign to promote the benefits, that's already been done :)

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.

...

Really? Nebraska isn't in Canada?

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!"

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.

Seriously, I rarely use sugar.

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.

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.

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.

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

Cheers! Rich

came across it. I didn't

it helpful for the same

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

was agnostic on the point.

Right up until it worked, right? ;-)

Cheers! Rich

came

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

friend >> >of a

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.

1. 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