OT truth in advertising

I was > agnostic on the point.

I was intruiged by its action.

Graahm

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

It was one of those "it can't do any harm so lets' try it " moments. In fact I was under the impression at first that it was some 'herbal' thingy. Ah yes, because of the Weleda brand name (Swiss).

Graham

better. I > > was agnostic on the point.

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.

Graham

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.

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.

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.

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

You might find this to be interesting and informative:

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

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

John

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

better. I > > was agnostic on the point.

of it but it wasn't til later that

mildly sceptical - definitely not

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?

That sounds exaclty like the placebo effect.

Bye. Jasen

An out of control desire to control.

Circa Wed, 23 May 2007 10:28:53 +0900 recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@spam.heaven sounds like:

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.

mildly > sceptical - definitely not

thing.

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.

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

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

Graham

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

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

Rhus

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

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

Graham