 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> That was the point Randi was making - some of the dilutions that were
> being advertised were less than one molecule per 6x10^23 atoms of water -
> or, as he also described < one molecule of caffeine (or whatever) per
> *more atoms of water than would fit in the space provided in the
> packaging*. IOW, it wasn't a *diluted* solution, it was to the point of
> placing odds on one molecule being even *in* the container, and those
> odds weren't particularly good.
Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the stuff
is. It makes perfect sense.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
> symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
> sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
> this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
> from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the stuff
> is. It makes perfect sense.
Well, I'm guessing that water that has almost no benzene in it is fairly
healthy, yeah... But that's some pretty simplistic reasoning.
Obligatory XKCD quote:
http://xkcd.com/641/
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I'm guessing that water that has almost no benzene in it is fairly
> healthy, yeah... But that's some pretty simplistic reasoning.
Warp is quite right, as ever. He is just trying to emulate the reasoning
behind homeopathy.
As far as I could follow the topic on wikipedia, the whole thing has quite a
lot of occultism in it. Dilution is just the physical side of preparation of
medicines, the stuff has to be "dynamized" by the ritual shaking of
waterbottles and so on.
It is as sound a concept as that of Victor Schauberger's "natural flows"
(supposedly able to create anything from free energy to anti-gravity to
healing medicine) or the theory that water has a memory. I find it
astonishing what people actually can believe in...
Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically proven)
effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works. If you just
really, truely and completey believe that a thing will work it can cure you:
be it homeopathy, accupuncture (here I see at least in some cases a physical
reason that might work - the needles blocking nerves >might< have effects -
though I am sceptical), faith healing, imbibing water at Lourdes or sleeping
below a pyramid.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/23/2010 2:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:17:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Some people argue that since homeopathic substances amount to
>>> placebos in
>>> practice, the entire phenomenon of homeopathy is more or less innocuous
>>
>> Homeopathy is innocuous. Believing it works is the danger. :-)
>
> Point to Darren. :-)
>
> Jim
This thread is reminding me of this, which I just had pointed out to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAYVY2eLMck&feature=player_embedded
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/24/2010 2:16 PM, TC wrote:
>> Well, I'm guessing that water that has almost no benzene in it is fairly
>> healthy, yeah... But that's some pretty simplistic reasoning.
>
> Warp is quite right, as ever. He is just trying to emulate the reasoning
> behind homeopathy.
>
> As far as I could follow the topic on wikipedia, the whole thing has quite a
> lot of occultism in it. Dilution is just the physical side of preparation of
> medicines, the stuff has to be "dynamized" by the ritual shaking of
> waterbottles and so on.
>
> It is as sound a concept as that of Victor Schauberger's "natural flows"
> (supposedly able to create anything from free energy to anti-gravity to
> healing medicine) or the theory that water has a memory. I find it
> astonishing what people actually can believe in...
>
> Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically proven)
> effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works. If you just
> really, truely and completey believe that a thing will work it can cure you:
> be it homeopathy, accupuncture (here I see at least in some cases a physical
> reason that might work - the needles blocking nerves>might< have effects -
> though I am sceptical), faith healing, imbibing water at Lourdes or sleeping
> below a pyramid.
>
Yeah, needles blocking nerves that are a) never in the same precise
physical place in every person, and b) where the practice seems to work,
when it does, whether you use the "correct" points at all, or c) even
one that could legitimately be connected to the part you are trying to
cure, might be plausible. Well.. except for the three things I
mentioned... lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/24/2010 2:22 AM, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> I really wonder whether the people who make this stuff really do
>> believe in it, or whether they are just laughing at all the idiots
>> giving them lots of money for tap water?
>
> My guess would be that both types of people exist. The interesting
> question is in what proportions they exist...
Better question is, how many may realize it is fake, but fear the
consequence to all the people they are *helping* by admitting that it is
fake? Was an article in a paper recently with this and religion, where
they found and interviewed like five priests who a) don't being in
***any*** of the Bible, including god, but did believe that the
consequence of admitting they don't believe in it, to those that do, or
need the church, was too high for them to admit they don't to their own
parishioners.
But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are good
at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
"apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally, then
finally completely fall for it themselves.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically proven)
> effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works. If you just
> really, truely and completey believe that a thing will work it can cure you:
> be it homeopathy, accupuncture (here I see at least in some cases a physical
> reason that might work - the needles blocking nerves >might< have effects -
> though I am sceptical), faith healing, imbibing water at Lourdes or sleeping
> below a pyramid.
The placebo effect seldom *cures* any disease. What it does is to alleviate
symptoms within the limits of what the human body itself can do.
This is especially so if the symptom is caused by the body itself. For
example, placebos can sometimes quite effective alleviating things like
astma attacks because an astma attack is, in fact, caused by the organism
itself as some kind of oversensitive protection mechanism. The placebo
effect can "convince" the body that there's no need for the "protection"
anymore, and thus the astma attack subsides. The same is true for many
other symptoms caused by a hypersensitive self-defense mechanism.
Another effect that placebos can have is to induce the body to produce
endorphins and other similar stuff which alleviates pain. This can be
quite effective sometimes. It's curious how it works, but somehow it just
works: If the brain strongly believes that the pain will go away, then it
subconsciously *makes* it go away by secreting endorphins.
Of course there are limits to what the body can do. A placebo cannot make
the body destroy a bacterial or virulent agent any faster than it would
normally do (if it's capable of doing it at all without the help of actual
medicine). A placebo cannot cure a genetic disease or disability, or cure
injuries any faster than normal. And so on.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are good
> at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
> "apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally, then
> finally completely fall for it themselves.
That reminds me of Obama-care.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Some people argue that since homeopathic substances amount to placebos in
> practice, the entire phenomenon of homeopathy is more or less innocuous
> (unless you count people spending money on it for nothing).
>
> Not so:
http://www.news.com.au/national/babys-eczema-death-was-parents-fault/story-e6frfkvr-1225708504277
Actually, homeopathy did have one enormous benefit in the past.
Until around 170 years ago, allopathy (what we recognize as conventional
medicine) was still stuck in the quackery that characterized medicine
during the Dark Ages; Mark Twain mentions in one of his essays that the
shift from the ancient quackery to modern competence took place during
his lifetime. Most of the success that allopathy appeared to have back
then was due to the placebo effect, and some of the treatments did more
harm than good.
Then along came homeopathy. Allopathy was so ineffective (and in some
cases, downright harmful) that homeopathy was usually as effective, and
often better. This prompted allopathic practitioners to put aside their
Galen-worship and conduct some actual research, leading to the discovery
of the new, effective treatments that replaced the old, dangerous ones.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/23/10 14:29, Stephen wrote:
> Believing it works for others, especially your children, is criminal.
And how, pray tell, will you enforce such a thing?
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/24/10 01:02, scott wrote:
> accept that fact and try another medicine. For someone to be using
> something on a child in the first place that has never been proven
> better than placebo, and then to refuse to try something else when it's
> not working, *that* is criminal.
See my question to Stephen: How do you propose enforcing it?
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> accept that fact and try another medicine. For someone to be using
>> something on a child in the first place that has never been proven
>> better than placebo, and then to refuse to try something else when it's
>> not working, *that* is criminal.
>
> See my question to Stephen: How do you propose enforcing it?
Same way as any other child neglect crimes. It either gets reported through
family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in the worst
case the death of the child triggers the investigation. Then you search for
evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care (very easy if they
admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide a punishment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2010 12:13 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 3/23/2010 4:29 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Believing it works for others, especially your children, is criminal.
>>
>
> It should be. Reminds me of a time when we purchased a teething remedy
> for our son that was highly recommended by just about everyone. It never
> seemed to do the job as well as the topical anesthetic product we also
> used (Orajel). I got curious about active ingredients, that's when I
> noticed things like belladona, and some such with a 10X after it. After
> reading that I remarked that he probably felt better temporarily because
> it was a sugar pill, and sweet tasting things will calm a baby for a
> moment (They used a glucose-coated pacifier when they did the neural
> hearing check before releasing him from the hospital after they were
> born to keep him drowsy so the brain activity would be at a minimum.
> Worked a treat!)
>
Give me chemicals and E numbers every time. :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2010 1:33 AM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 03/23/10 14:29, Stephen wrote:
>> Believing it works for others, especially your children, is criminal.
>
> And how, pray tell, will you enforce such a thing?
>
Shoot the Bar Stewards that get caught.
P.S. Bar Stewards is a British synonym for someone whose parents are not
married.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/03/2010 12:08 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 3/24/2010 1:12 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>>> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
>>> rather strange one.
>>>
>>
>> The same way a brain gets stronger the less you use it.
>>
>
> Um ... Atrophy much? ;)
>
Drat! I forgot the <irony> tags ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2010 12:50 AM, Tim Attwood wrote:
>> But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are
>> good at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
>> "apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally,
>> then finally completely fall for it themselves.
>
> That reminds me of Obama-care.
From this side of the Pond it is hard to tell which side you’re on.
But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Same way as any other child neglect crimes. It either gets reported
> through family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in
> the worst case the death of the child triggers the investigation. Then
> you search for evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care
> (very easy if they admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide a
> punishment.
While I don't hold with homeopathy and while I find this case very sad, do
you REALLY want to live in a world where you HAVE to let MD's decide your
fate or risk prosecution? I blame the parents for being stupid, but if they
REALLY believed they were doing the best for their child, I would not punish
them - the death of their child should be punishment enough.
From my personal experience, while being a child myself:
One MD #1 wanted to do surgery on me for hernia. My father said he had the
same condition at my age, but it healed later. MD #1: "That's nonsense,
cannot be - my father must have understood something wrong. It's almost
criminal to do nothing." Turned out MD #1 was wrong, a few years later I was
fine. Another MD #2 checking my medical records at this later date said:
"MD #1 must have really been a moron. No sign of hernia at all. MD #1 must
have misdiagnosed." When I told him it just healed by itself, MD #2 said the
same as MD #1: "Nonsense, hernia does not heal by itself."
Another MD wanted to do a tonsil-ectomy on me. Said this had to be or there
would be grave consequences in my later life. 45 years later I still have my
tonsils.
Once as a child I got accidentally showered by a pot of scalding water. Lost
all the skin in my face - raw flesh was all that remained. MD at the clinic
placed an antiseptic net on my face, which was to stay and be repaced
regularly because of the danger of infection. Luckily for me, our own MD at
this time came from a less developed (and thus less enlightened) country.
This MD told my parents to take the net off immediately, else I would bear
the pattern of it for life. Better just to bath the face a few times a day
in cold camomile tea, to >really< make sure I did not scratch my face or
play outside before new skin had formed and, if there should be infection,
IMMEDIATELY call him. Well, he was right, all healed fine, no scars left
except a very small white spot on my brow when I sweat.
MDs don't know everything. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes it is like a
game of chance - go the >sure< way and suffer >some< consequences (for sure
and for life) or go the risky way and risk grave consequences but, if all
goes well, live your life completely healed. I think most treatments are
based on odds - and MDs just make an educated guess on what the odds may be.
Or think about ulcer-treatment. Preferred scientific method of treatment a
few years ago: cut off a large chunk of stomach. Bacteria cannot be the
cause of ulcers, well known fact no bacteria can live in the stomach because
of the hydrochloric acid there. Laughable to believe otherwise. Nowadays you
take a few pills, heliobacter pylori dies, you are cured.
I would prefer to have the option to say no to any treatment I do not want,
for me or my children. Or to try any treatment, even if it is laughed at by
others. It should be my decision - and I hope it will be right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Some people argue that since homeopathic substances amount to placebos in
> > practice, the entire phenomenon of homeopathy is more or less innocuous
> Homeopathy is innocuous. Believing it works is the danger. :-)
The danger with homeopathy is that it's an ideology which rides on
people's tendency to mistrust authority and herd behavior. It's an ideology
which tells people that "scientists are closed-minded, hung on their limited
views of nature, and unwilling to accept alternatives" (which couldn't be
farther from the truth, but people just can't understand that).
In other words, homeopathy is in the same league as conspiracy theories
and religions.
The article I posted is a perfect example of what kind of thinking
homeopathy produces: The father was so religiously convinced about
homeopathy that he didn't change his mind even after it was clearly
shown to not to work. He refused to acknowledge being wrong even after
his son died.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> MDs don't know everything. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes it is like a
> game of chance -
Sure, but I don't think any of those cases you mentioned are similar to the
original story.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:03:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That was the point Randi was making - some of the dilutions that were
>> being advertised were less than one molecule per 6x10^23 atoms of water
>> - or, as he also described < one molecule of caffeine (or whatever) per
>> *more atoms of water than would fit in the space provided in the
>> packaging*. IOW, it wasn't a *diluted* solution, it was to the point
>> of placing odds on one molecule being even *in* the container, and
>> those odds weren't particularly good.
>
> Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
> symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
> sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
> this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
> from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the
> stuff is. It makes perfect sense.
It's a load of codswallop. If I titrate caffeine to the point there's
none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than
taking water that's never been near caffeine. It is chemically the
*same*.
And thus would have the same effect as drinking an ordinary glass of
water.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I should clarify that I understand that you're explaining the reasoning
those who believe that this stuff works apply, and that you don't
necessarily believe it either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
Thank you. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>
> Thank you. :-)
>
> Jim
:-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/24/2010 5:50 PM, Tim Attwood wrote:
>> But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are
>> good at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
>> "apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally,
>> then finally completely fall for it themselves.
>
> That reminds me of Obama-care.
Which version? The real one, which includes a mass of shit that
Republicans insisted be added, then refused to vote for, none of which
does more than 10% of what any other country in the west has done to try
to fix theirs, or the one that is made up of lie, after lie, after lie,
about what it contains, while ***never*** actually linking to the text
of the actual document, so people can see what it actually does say?
You know.. The "40% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist Muslim
anti-Christ, out to turn us into a new China.", versus the, "46% of
everyone things the bill sucks, because it doesn't do enough.", version
of it?
Sorry for the rant, but I am getting real tired of this crap. Obama
isn't trying to undermine the American way of life, and if anything,
isn't fracking trying hard enough to do what should be done, so pisses
me off to no end a lot of the time. The Republicans haven't had anything
to offer at all for 20 years on the subject (or at least since fracking
Nixon, who also failed to pass anything at all), and the only thing that
has changed is that now they don't want to even negotiate to pass
anything at all (if they did, 50% of the crap in the bill, including the
damn "individual mandate" which 14 states are now trying to challenge,
where ***Republican*** inclusions, which he compromised on adding, in
hopes to get bipartisan support). What has happened is that we have a
badly compromised bill, which doesn't encourage competition, contains
**nothing** in it about new taxes, or the like, no language adding
abortion coverage, or any of about 50 other lies told about it, but
which also does almost nothing that would stop the insurance companies,
which are already nearly 30% of the national economy, and in the last
few years have raised rates 40-60% in various places, *during* a
financial crisis, from ending up owning 50%, or 80%, or even, now that
they can, thanks to five people on the Supreme Court, basically buy up
any politician they want, 90%? of the entire economy. I mean, if they
own the government (via massive election funding campaigns), who is
going to challenge them on having monopolies, or excessive influence?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
> > symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
> > sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
> > this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
> > from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the
> > stuff is. It makes perfect sense.
> It's a load of codswallop.
My text above was written in jest.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
>> Homeopathy is innocuous. Believing it works is the danger. :-)
>
> Believing it works is the cure...
Bazinga!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
> rather strange one.
Technically, the stuff in the "remedy" isn't something that cures you, but
something that makes you sick in the same way. It's closer to a vaccine
than a cure. The homeopathic remedy for poison ivy is something that makes
you itch, well-diluted.
Altho when you start getting into the actual numbers like 30C, you find out
that it's literally impossible to create such a dilution. It would take more
than all the oceans in the world to dilute something that much, so you'd
have to go back to the water you'd already thrown out and re-use it in the
dilution process.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically proven)
> effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works.
Even stranger: The placebo effect is getting stronger. There are medicines
on the market in the USA that if you re-tested them, you'd find they're
ineffective. The placbo effect has gotten stronger to the point where it's
now stronger than the actual medicine that passed scrutiny a couple decades ago.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> MDs don't know everything.
A huge number of deaths are caused by trying to get treated for something
that isn't life-threatening. As in, something like 40% of all hospital
deaths of people who weren't in danger of dying are caused by mistakes made
while they were in the hospital. Or some such number.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Altho when you start getting into the actual numbers like 30C, you find out
> that it's literally impossible to create such a dilution. It would take more
> than all the oceans in the world to dilute something that much, so you'd
> have to go back to the water you'd already thrown out and re-use it in the
> dilution process.
To get a 1:10^30 dilution you only need 30 cubic units of water.
Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters of
this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's a load of codswallop. If I titrate caffeine to the point there's
> none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than
> taking water that's never been near caffeine. It is chemically the
> *same*.
I think these people believe there is something "beyond" basic chemistry, ie
even when no active substance can be detected, it has somehow made its mark
on the carrier substance (water, sugar etc). And as is completely normal
with human nature, they subconsciously interpret the results of a few very
unscientific tests (eg my friends mum was cured by it) and conclude it
works.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/25/2010 3:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> TC wrote:
>> Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically
>> proven) effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works.
>
> Even stranger: The placebo effect is getting stronger. There are
> medicines on the market in the USA that if you re-tested them, you'd
> find they're ineffective. The placbo effect has gotten stronger to the
> point where it's
> now stronger than the actual medicine that passed scrutiny a couple
> decades ago.
>
Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or
indirectly, to things so much that their bodies "get used to" having it
in the blood stream, so when you do need it, its less effective. This is
well known, with almost *everything*, especially if it effects nerves,
brain function, etc.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I think these people believe there is something "beyond" basic chemistry, ie
> even when no active substance can be detected, it has somehow made its mark
> on the carrier substance (water, sugar etc). And as is completely normal
> with human nature, they subconsciously interpret the results of a few very
> unscientific tests (eg my friends mum was cured by it) and conclude it
> works.
I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
that the thing is bogus.
Someone might believe that something works because someone claims that it
worked on 10 people. Even if a scientifically accurate study is then performed
repeatedly on 1000 people, and this test shows that it doesn't actually work,
these people will *still* believe it works.
I really can't understand why. It's like accurate scientifical testing which
is more extensive and more thorough is less convincing than a much smaller
sample of inaccurate circumstancial evidence.
Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
behind this kind of thinking?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
> 27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
> from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters
> of
> this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.
Where do you get 27 liters of water from that doesn't have a single molecule
in it of the thing you are trying to dilute?
Better hope nobody has already tried it and thrown away the 10% solution
into the sea :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological
> phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?
In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to
research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about
than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to
work or not. Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a
scientific test.
I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and explained
the science and the study results, they would believe you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and explained
> the science and the study results, they would believe you.
I doubt it. If you could reason with people believing in such things, they
wouldn't believe in them in the first place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and
>> explained
>> the science and the study results, they would believe you.
>
> I doubt it. If you could reason with people believing in such things, they
> wouldn't believe in them in the first place.
The thing is they just don't care about the science, they buy it because it
seems cool, and don't even give a second thought to how it has been tested
or what "30C" actually means. Most people are reasonable once you explain
things to them (of course there are exceptions, the "die hard" believers).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological
> > phenomenon
> > behind this kind of thinking?
> In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to
> research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about
> than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to
> work or not. Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a
> scientific test.
I specifically talked about people who keep believing in it even *after*
they have been told about the better tests. In other words, they refuse to
believe in the accuracy of the scientifical tests.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
> > 27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
> > from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters
> > of
> > this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.
> Where do you get 27 liters of water from that doesn't have a single molecule
> in it of the thing you are trying to dilute?
> Better hope nobody has already tried it and thrown away the 10% solution
> into the sea :-)
I'm sure homeopaths will argue something like the solution specifically
needing to be performed by "succussion" or else there will be no effect.
(Don't bother asking for the physical or chemical explanation for this.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/03/2010 8:28 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
[snip]
> Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?
>
I think that we’re talking “religion” here. :-(
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will feel
better. If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe only 25
will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine getting weaker.
It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/26/2010 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or
>
>
> That's not what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will
> feel better. If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe
> only 25 will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine
> getting weaker. It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.
>
Hmm. Ok, then the other argument is that in the last 10 years, or so,
the amount of pure bullshit being sold has doubled, at least, even to
the extent of them being sold in markets. The overall perception may
have begun to be distorted, such that people are already taking products
they do no realize *are* placebos, such as AirBorne, and having
convinced themselves that those work, they have started "training"
themselves to expect *any* fake product to work too.
In effect, its become like a meditative practice. Do it enough times and
your brain starts to *expect* something to work, even when it doesn't. I
wouldn't be surprised if this was highly common back when herbal
remedies where the only ones available, and 99% of the contents of books
on the subject where, as they still are, made up of guesses, false
positives, and/or even contradictions between the real effect of some
herbs (if you took enough), and what they have been recommended for.
If what you need a "cure" for is something controllable, like pain (and
you can control that on a huge level, depending on skill, and possibly
other factors), using a false source of cure, to help trick yourself
into not feeling it, may actually be, for many people **as** effective
as real medication. Then again, if you where my grandmother, just
deciding not to feel the pain would be sufficient (she literally let
them sew up her leg, without meds, at 80, after slashing it open almost
all the way down the side, due to a condition that produces really thin
skin). And that.. Is kind of a huge problem. Because people don't
measure, and can't measure, their condition based on *if* they still
have the condition, the measure it based on pain, or symptoms, and most
of those things *can be* controlled mentally, without actually fixing
the problem causing them. And, that makes it even *more* dangerous.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/26/10 09:53, Darren New wrote:
> I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will
> feel better. If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe
> only 25 will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine
> getting weaker. It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.
Dan Ariely got an Ig Noble Prize for showing that expensive placebos
are more effective than cheap ones.
Point being that a lot of other factors dictate the effectiveness of a
placebo. Some of those may be the reason for what you're describing.
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/26/10 01:28, Warp wrote:
> I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
> flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
> in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
> that the thing is bogus.
Finland must be an awesome place to live.
Seriously? You find it hard to believe? I suspect that if I want to
make big money in marketing, I'll have poor competitors where you are
(although perhaps you just limit your own exposure to ads).
Don't separate evidence with claims completely. For most people, the
evidence they know for anything (including legitimate science) is via
claims.
> Someone might believe that something works because someone claims that it
> worked on 10 people. Even if a scientifically accurate study is then performed
> repeatedly on 1000 people, and this test shows that it doesn't actually work,
> these people will *still* believe it works.
How many of these people have been told about its failure on the 1000
people by *someone they trust*?
> Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?
Scientific rigor is abnormal. It's not innate. It needs to be taught,
and reinforced. Most people may learn it in school, but few apply what
they learn in school to their lives out of school.
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/25/10 01:08, scott wrote:
>>> accept that fact and try another medicine. For someone to be using
>>> something on a child in the first place that has never been proven
>>> better than placebo, and then to refuse to try something else when it's
>>> not working, *that* is criminal.
>>
>> See my question to Stephen: How do you propose enforcing it?
>
> Same way as any other child neglect crimes. It either gets reported
> through family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in
> the worst case the death of the child triggers the investigation. Then
> you search for evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care
> (very easy if they admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide
> a punishment.
I think you're missing my point. So what should the concerned
neighbors/friends report? That some parent is using a treatment that is
not certified by the FDA (in the US)? If so, you've suddenly
criminalized all herbal treatments, and any other treatment that may be
common elsewhere.
The point being that it's hard to criminalize _just_ homeopathic
medicine. If you want to criminalize everything that is not approved by
some government body, I'd be dead set against it. There are too many
things that would get banned.
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/25/10 06:45, scott wrote:
>> MDs don't know everything. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes it is
>> like a game of chance -
>
> Sure, but I don't think any of those cases you mentioned are similar to
> the original story.
Yes. So my question is: How do you draft the regulations to catch what
was in the original story and not what TC is describing?
It's not irrelevant. He's describing a case where a parent opted no
treatment whatsoever for a condition the medical field seemed to think
warranted treatment. Should his father have been tried for it?
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/25/10 06:05, Warp wrote:
> The danger with homeopathy is that it's an ideology which rides on
> people's tendency to mistrust authority and herd behavior. It's an ideology
You could simply go a step further and blame a lot of authorities for
giving good reasons to mistrust them.
--
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Point being that a lot of other factors dictate the effectiveness of a
> placebo. Some of those may be the reason for what you're describing.
Yep. I'd even guess that the fact that real medicine has become more
effective can increase the placebo effect. It's much easier to believe that
something can be cured nowadays than even 20 years ago, let alone 100.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>> Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological
>>> phenomenon
>>> behind this kind of thinking?
>
>> In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to
>> research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about
>> than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to
>> work or not. Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a
>> scientific test.
>
> I specifically talked about people who keep believing in it even *after*
> they have been told about the better tests. In other words, they refuse to
> believe in the accuracy of the scientifical tests.
>
Information weighting, though I don't know what the psychological term
for it is.
For the same reason someone who thinks scientifically holds 10 studies
of 1000 people each in higher regard to 10 studies of 10 people total,
some people hold a study that is physically closer to them to be
important. 1000 people they do not know is not as important to them as
the one person it does work for. Or they do not not understand the math
involved once the sample size gets past a certain point.
There is also the fact that people have not evolved to think of every
other human on the same level. They consider their friends and family
more than someone they do not know; see Dunbar and any other
evolutionary psychology. So, 2 people they know had this medicine work.
10,000 people they do not know or never met did not. Since they weight
there friends and family over several thousands or millions of
strangers, the balance tilts towards believing in this stuff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Dan Ariely got an Ig Noble Prize for showing that expensive placebos
> are more effective than cheap ones.
Also the authority of the person who gives the placebo to the patient has
an effect. It's much more effective if the placebo is given by the chief
physician of the hospital rather than a nurse.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
