Re: Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots | Forum

H

handofdave Jan 29, 2010 13:08:51

Replying to Merrick

So is the placebo effect hinging on a leap of faith, so to speak, or on a deception? You can't sell sugar tablets as sugar tablets and have anyone bother with them.

It'd be unethical, of course, for a doctor to present a prescription as one thing but secretly slip sugar pills into the bottle, but it'd probably work if the patient were no wiser in at least some cases, as you admit.

But that's not what's happening with Homeopathic remedies, is it? Do licensed doctors prescribe it, or is it merely available to people as a choice?

As I said elsewhere here, I don't see a problem with marketing the stuff as long as there is full disclosure that clinical trials disprove the efficacy of the stuff. People continue to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol even tho they actually DO harm, and we allow it because we believe in the freedom of adults to choose their own poisons.

Some people will accept that it's just water, some will continue to use it anyway. As homeopathic remedies can do no further harm in themselves, I say let it go. If people believe in it, and it works for them, and they don't mind forking over big bucks for a tiny vial of H20, let 'em.

S

Squid Tempest Jan 29, 2010 13:11:30

Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:

Squid, I don't doubt that homeopathy's worked for your friend.

Squid Tempest wrote:

Apparently for her it really works, and in ways that it is hard to fit in with the placebo effect. real, physical differences.

I think you misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It *does* deliver real, physical differences. It really medically works for some people. Ben Goldacre's excellent article on placebo says there was even a study where people were told they were getting a placebo with no actual medicine in and some of them responded.

http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/all-bow-before-the-might-of-the-placebo-effect-it-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/

Squid Tempest wrote:

Could it possibly be that there is something going on here that science has yet to suss out?

If it actually worked as actual medicine, tests would show that. WE don't need science to show *how* it works - there is a lot of mystery and much that we don't yet know - but trials do need to show that something *does* work. And the extensive trials of homeopathy show that it does not, beyond placebo.

Merrick, I don't misunderstand the placebo effect. I have a strong scientific background. I said "in ways that are hard to fit in with the placebo effect". In other words, way beyond what you would expect from a placebo. It might be possible for that to be attributable to a placebo, but the odds against it would be stacked high.

And don't place so much faith in "extensive trials". These have a habit of only "proving" what the person running the trial wants to prove. You've only got to look at the way cannabis has been re-assessed and re-assessed over the years, each trial "proving" something different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still sceptical about homeopathy, but I intend to retain an open mind until I've seen some pretty conclusive proof for myself one way or the other.

S

Squid Tempest Jan 29, 2010 21:56:22

Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:

Squid, I don't doubt that homeopathy's worked for your friend.

Squid Tempest wrote:

Apparently for her it really works, and in ways that it is hard to fit in with the placebo effect. real, physical differences.

I think you misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It *does* deliver real, physical differences. It really medically works for some people. Ben Goldacre's excellent article on placebo says there was even a study where people were told they were getting a placebo with no actual medicine in and some of them responded.

http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/all-bow-before-the-might-of-the-placebo-effect-it-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/

Squid Tempest wrote:

Could it possibly be that there is something going on here that science has yet to suss out?

If it actually worked as actual medicine, tests would show that. WE don't need science to show *how* it works - there is a lot of mystery and much that we don't yet know - but trials do need to show that something *does* work. And the extensive trials of homeopathy show that it does not, beyond placebo.

And another thing. If it was purely a placebo, why didn't conventional medicine provide a placebo effect? For my friend it was the conventional medicine that had no effect, and for whom homeopathic remedies actually worked. Convenient to use the word "placebo" where it backs up the required argument, isn't it?

Can't quite believe I'm defending homeopathy - I can see no conceivable mechanism by which it works. I am only going on the experience of (a very trusted) friend. That friend was very convincing about it though - it turned her health around, in an obvious and quantifiable fashion. Very difficult evidence for me to deny.