OT truth in advertising

May 20, 2007 130 Replies

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...

Here's the link I posted last night...

formatting link

And here's another that you'd find most informative, an article titled "Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work".

formatting link

Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If that's working for you, great. I prefer to distinguish between "makes me better" and "makes me feel better".

Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

better. I > > was agnostic on the point.

of it but it wasn't til later that

mildly sceptical - definitely not

thing.

Nah, they can't afford it. They don't have a government bureaucracy shoveling taxpayer money into their research programs.

Thanks, Rich

In what way are they different, specifically?

Thanks, Rich

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!

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

Cheers! Rich

This guy claims to know ALL of the answers:

formatting link

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

For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

Here:

---------------------------- Subject: Re: OT truth > Eeyore wrote:

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

----------------------------

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

Cheers! Rich

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

Cheers! Rich

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.

Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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?

Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Of course it is; I never said otherwise.

Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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

Yes, there are. Google is your friend here.

Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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

John

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 snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

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

Circa Thu, 24 May 2007 13:53:23 -0400 recorded as looks like John Popelish sounds like:

Mmmmm, potassium!

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.

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required