Homeopathy.... At last

[Derek Smith]

julian64 said:

Derek Smith said:

There is loads on the internet with regards to the testing of placebos against homeopathy.

There was one strange case where placebos worked despite the person not knowing they were receiving anything. There was another bit of research where homeopathy worked less well than placebos. That result confused the hell out of the researchers.

There was one chap on here who was at an A&E when a chap was brought in with, essentially, an overdose of placebos. That was strange. There was an article in New Scientist where similar examples were quoted. The strangest thing about placebos is that they are stranger than anyone anticipated.

Dangerous stuff in fact.

Its all essentially rubbish reporting though, I think you assume the tablet is the placebo when in fact it probably isn't.

I've had a quick search for the post but can't find it. From memory the chap was brought in with low blood pressure after a suicide bid by taking all the pills he'd been issued with for the test. When it was discovered they were placebos he was told that the pills were harmless. A little while later his blood pressured rose and he was released.

There is no doubt that placebos can make a person feel ill as well as better. One only has to search under nocebos to show this. This more or less supports the contention it is all in the delivery.

[julian64]

Derek Smith said:

I've had a quick search for the post but can't find it. From memory the chap was brought in with low blood pressure after a suicide bid by taking all the pills he'd been issued with for the test. When it was discovered they were placebos he was told that the pills were harmless. A little while later his blood pressured rose and he was released.

There is no doubt that placebos can make a person feel ill as well as better. One only has to search under nocebos to show this. This more or less supports the contention it is all in the delivery.

Its still just anecdotal. Someone who is in that frame of mind to overdose is a very poor historian. You have no idea what other drugs he may have taken. You may even be describing a panic attack from someone who believes they have taken something that will kill them.

As I said before the placebo effect is real but its not usually to do with the tablets given. Its the trust the patient has in the doctor, the time the doctor takes to explain things to the patient, the patients expectations and beliefs that a patient has regarding the treatments or the person giving them.

If I'm dressed like a goth and give a sugar pill to someone walking into a nightclub telling them the pill will give them a good time, or if I'm dressed as a doctor the patient has known for a long time and give the m the same pill in a surgery setting telling them it will make them better but nauseous for a few days. Both people will get different experience from taking the same pill.

Interestingly the longer I spend with them the more likely they are to get the side effect I suggest to them. Taking a long time to explain the likely side effects of a drug to patients affects not only the likelihood of them reporting the side effect but the severity score they will give it. More likely to get it, more likely to report it as less severe

.
.
.
If you have to look for anything homeopathy can teach modern medicine about health its that your average homeopath spends much more time with a patient than the NHS do. The NHS is absolute **** at explaining things to patients

[XM5ER]

julian64 said:

Its still just anecdotal. Someone who is in that frame of mind to overdose is a very poor historian. You have no idea what other drugs he may have taken. You may even be describing a panic attack from someone who believes they have taken something that will kill them.

As I said before the placebo effect is real but its not usually to do with the tablets given. Its the trust the patient has in the doctor, the time the doctor takes to explain things to the patient, the patients expectations and beliefs that a patient has regarding the treatments or the person giving them.

If I'm dressed like a goth and give a sugar pill to someone walking into a nightclub telling them the pill will give them a good time, or if I'm dressed as a doctor the patient has known for a long time and give the m the same pill in a surgery setting telling them it will make them better but nauseous for a few days. Both people will get different experience from taking the same pill.

Interestingly the longer I spend with them the more likely they are to get the side effect I suggest to them. Taking a long time to explain the likely side effects of a drug to patients affects not only the likelihood of them reporting the side effect but the severity score they will give it. More likely to get it, more likely to report it as less severe

.
.
.
If you have to look for anything homeopathy can teach modern medicine about health its that your average homeopath spends much more time with a patient than the NHS do. The NHS is absolute **** at explaining things to patients

Can I suggest you read the books Influence and Pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini .

[julian64]

XM5ER said:

Can I suggest you read the books Influence and Pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini .

Possibly as its an interesting subject, then I read this on amazon

'You'll learn the six universal principles, how to use them to become a skilled persuader—and how to defend yourself against them. Perfect for people in all walks of life, the principles of Influence will move you toward profound personal change and act as a driving force for your success'.

Then I thought..... possibly not.

[XM5ER]

julian64 said:

Possibly as its an interesting subject, then I read this on amazon

'You'll learn the six universal principles, how to use them to become a skilled persuader—and how to defend yourself against them. Perfect for people in all walks of life, the principles of Influence will move you toward profound personal change and act as a driving force for your success'.

Then I thought..... possibly not.

Don't worry about the "self help" bks, it's science based. Cialdini was on the Obama team in 2008, he knows his stuff.

[Derek Smith]

julian64 said:

Its still just anecdotal. Someone who is in that frame of mind to overdose is a very poor historian. You have no idea what other drugs he may have taken. You may even be describing a panic attack from someone who believes they have taken something that will kill them.

As I said before the placebo effect is real but its not usually to do with the tablets given. Its the trust the patient has in the doctor, the time the doctor takes to explain things to the patient, the patients expectations and beliefs that a patient has regarding the treatments or the person giving them.

If I'm dressed like a goth and give a sugar pill to someone walking into a nightclub telling them the pill will give them a good time, or if I'm dressed as a doctor the patient has known for a long time and give the m the same pill in a surgery setting telling them it will make them better but nauseous for a few days. Both people will get different experience from taking the same pill.

Interestingly the longer I spend with them the more likely they are to get the side effect I suggest to them. Taking a long time to explain the likely side effects of a drug to patients affects not only the likelihood of them reporting the side effect but the severity score they will give it. More likely to get it, more likely to report it as less severe

If you have to look for anything homeopathy can teach modern medicine about health its that your average homeopath spends much more time with a patient than the NHS do. The NHS is absolute **** at explaining things to patients

You seem to reject something that happened. OK, but that doesn't change the facts.

You suggest that the reason homeopathy gets results is the time the dispenser spends with the recipient. Research suggest this is the case for some, but by no means all. Indeed, not even the majority in some research. It is, in fact, a reassuring urban myth.

My experience with the NHS is that if you ask you are given in-depth answers about any treatment.

Placebos will, many think, give a whole new avenue for treatment for patients. It is non-invasive and generally has few side effects. Unremarkably, it works on the gullible every bit as well as it works on the intelligent.

Some research gives results that bewilder and much confounds logic. There's no doubt that research is in its infancy and anyone who suggests they know how placebos work is guessing, but whether they will be proved correct is anyone's guess.

It's a fascinating subject, part of the fun being that scientists disagree so often. I've read a great deal on the subject, my interest being tweaked by a series of articles on the subject in New Scientist some time ago. The one thing that we know about placebos is that we know so little about the way they work. But work they do.

The really fascinating thing is that as new research surfaces, it tends to give rise to more questions rather than clarify. That's cool.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

My understanding of placebos, along with the power of prayer and the like, is that they can be great for pain management, which is a mental process, and even stuff like stiff joints and other stuff that can be partly physiological.

But a malignant tumour doesn't know people are praying for it's destruction and a sugared pill won't make any odds. And that's where this stuff if really dangerous, and ever very intelligent people can be fooled by this snake oil.

I seem to recall Steve Jobs wasted a lot of time with alternative nonsense before turning to medicine to fight his cancer, and if he had gone straight to actual medicine, he could still be alive today.