Well, I'm terrified.

Home Forum Chat Forum Well, I'm terrified.

Viewing 22 posts - 41 through 62 (of 62 total)
  • Well, I'm terrified.
  • gwaelod
    Member

    The midges in Scotland are already weaponised

    FFS

    Junkyard
    Member

    explain conciousness to me in terms of provable scientific theory please.

    I like this question

    Obviously if we cannot do this then homoeopathy is true ….sort of explains the reasoning of the supporters I guess

    The dara clip [ seen before] is funny and informative on the issue

    I suppose i used to think no harm but as Dr p notes sometimes we need to protect the gullible [ or hopelessly optimistic] from themselves.

    nealglover
    Member

    I am interested in discussing the role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies.

    That’s a fairly simple discussion.

    The role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies is to “get scientifically proven”

    Then people with sense might be interested.

    jonba
    Member

    The second point to consider is for the placebo effect to work the patient must believe it will work which means the doctor will need to lie to the patient which isn’t very ethical

    Not necessarily. The placebo effect is fascinating.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19904-placebos-can-work-even-when-you-know-theyre-fakes.html#.UwEqPPklSLw

    yossarian
    Member

    The role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies is to “get scientifically proven”
    Then people with sense might be interested.

    Completely and entirely wrong. The role of science is to understand that which it currently does not. In short I contend that our understanding is the limiting factor, not occurrences. You may consider it simple but perhaps that’s your perspective.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    Where did previous medicinal knowledge and experience come from? It wasn’t plucked from the air that’s for sure.

    For sure? That’s pretty much exactly how it worked historically.

    yossarian
    Member

    For sure? That’s pretty much exactly how it worked historically.

    I suggest the majority of remedies from the old days were founded entirely on experience of what actually worked – with results based on what worked from an anecdotal and observational viewpoint rather than a medically ‘proven’ one. It was certainly dressed up in the palatable bollocks of the day, but then it is now as well. It’s just the language and starting point has changed.

    DrP
    Member

    ^^^
    The mortality rates were previously phenomenal!
    Ego, in some historical cases treatments worked , but it’s not until the advent of evidenced based medicine that real advances and improvements in outcomes have been made.

    DrP

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    you must know something about it I reckon MrP…

    The link I put above to the BBC series Pain, Poison & Puss is a great watch.

    DrP
    Member

    MrP… 😯

    😉

    IanMunro
    Member

    I suggest the majority of remedies from the old days were founded entirely on experience of what actually worked – with results based on what worked from an anecdotal and observational viewpoint rather than a medically ‘proven’ one.

    Yes that’s why sacrificing animals and people to the gods became so popular in some cultures.

    AdamW
    Member

    Lets face it, all that needs to happen is a number of positive double-blind trials for homeopathy to be ruled effective and therefore move from ‘alternative medicine’ to ‘medicine’.

    Ah, but the have been a number of double-blind trials. And they all show that homeopathy is a load of old donkey droppings.

    Do people *really* believe that something diluted by 10^60 (more than 10^-26 chance of there being a single molecule of any active ingredient) and then ‘succussed’ (struck against an elastic substance ten times) every so often actually does anything? My mate who’s into this rubbish just believed it because it was ‘woo’-ish. He didn’t even know what ‘succussion’ was but liked the woo. Every time he said the word ‘homeopathy’ I expected Clannad to start breathing musically in the distance (and I *like* Clannad!).

    It beggars belief. Then you’ve got idiots who cause death by their idiocy. Or people who end up dead due to their desire for woo-ness.

    Though I tend to think it is Darwinism in action. It’s a shame as people have died due to this complete and utter crap from a discredited German chappy in 1796.

    ****aaaaaand relax!********

    Premier Icon stumpyjon
    Subscriber

    Promoted to consultant!

    yossarian, you’re confusing science and the NHS, of course science should look at alternative treatments, that’s not the same as giving them any credance until it is warranted, even more importantly the NHS should not be using treatments based on anecdotal evidence, unproven and unlikely claims and the give it a go approach. When there are peer reviewed, double blind trials showing homeopathy works (even if we still don’t fully understand it) it can take it’s place in the toolbox of treatments. Until then it should be treated with healthy scepticism. Steange how uncooperative homeopathic practitioners seem to be though.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    stumpyjon wrote:

    The second point to consider is for the placebo effect to work the patient must believe it will work which means the doctor will need to lie to the patient which isn’t very ethical. Any doctor who believes in homeopathy despite the underwhelming lack of efficacy evidence would be suspect to start with.

    It’s worse than that. For it to work properly, the doctor also has to believe, as it’s been proven that patients can pick up vibes from the doctor (that or he has to be a very good liar). Hence why trials are double blind – for those who’ve seen the term but don’t understand it, it means that neither the patient nor the person prescribing knows whether they’re getting the real medicine.

    …and yes I do note the NS article about placebos working even when people know they are placebos.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    I suggest the majority of remedies from the old days were founded entirely on experience of what actually worked

    Things like Homeopathy gained ground not because they worked, but because at the time the experimental alternatives killed as many people as they saved. For all its failings, it’s quite difficult to die a from Homeopathic remedy(*), compared to say trepanning, non-sterile surgery, or blood transfusions before medicine was aware of blood types.

    (* – short of drowning, anyway)

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    See, where it gets so messy with placebos… I suffer from chronic pain, which sounds bad but it’s very mild so it’s not really that big a deal… It just means it’s long-term and probably permanent, but doable. But it comes and goes.

    Now I’m 100% sure that it’s at least partly psychosomatic, or habituated or whatever… Little accidental experiments like having a bad pain day and it getting better after I think i’ve taken painkillers when actually I left them on the worktop, stuff like that, over the course of years- you get the hints. Hey, my leg feels better when the sun’s shining! You get quite comfortable with the possibility that your nervous system is basically a dick.

    And if a homeopathic remedy helped with that, in the same way that pills I forgot to take help, well, it (should) cost basically nothing and it’s probably less damaging than long term painkillers.

    Now if I had something easily treatable, and I passed up on that treatment for a bottle of nothing, that’s bad juju. But if you gave me a homeopathic medication, maybe that could help- probably not if I knew it was just tapwater but if it was dressed as medicine.

    But then, you get into the messy ethics of prescribing something you know is nothing, and in fact deceiving the patient. What’s more important, honesty or help?

    Humans are pretty complicated machines so you don’t have to buy into the woo to think that under certain circumstances it could do some good, or, help the person to do some good for themselves. But equally you don’t have to believe it’s completely pointless to be against promoting it as proper medicine. Ethics and safety make it not at all simple IMO.

    CountZero
    Member

    Perhaps you lot ought to stop bickering for a bit and watch Horizon – The power of the placebo this week, and see what some real experts say.
    Then you can go back to your bickering again.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wcchn

    Tim Minchin is all over this:

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk[/video]

    nealglover
    Member

    Completely and entirely wrong. The role of science is to understand that which it currently does not. In short I contend that our understanding is the limiting factor, not occurrences. You may consider it simple but perhaps that’s your perspective.

    I thought you wanted to discuss “the role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies”

    Now you’ve changed that and you want to discuss the role of science

    Do you need any help moving those goalposts ?
    They look heavy.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    But then, you get into the messy ethics of prescribing something you know is nothing, and in fact deceiving the patient. What’s more important, honesty or help?

    A good and insightful post, but there is a risk in trying to help people like that. The placebo effect isn’t very reliable, so if tell people that a pill will help and it doesn’t, it could reduce trust in medicine. Which could result in an anti-placebo effect even for real drugs!

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    short of drowning

    A much under rated medical intervention, has a one of the lowest rates of post procedural complaints from the patients.

Viewing 22 posts - 41 through 62 (of 62 total)

The topic ‘Well, I'm terrified.’ is closed to new replies.