Re: Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots | Forum

Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots

more_vert

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.

handofdave Jan 29, 2010 13:19:25

Replying to Squid Tempest

Squid Tempest wrote:

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.

Quantum physics, perhaps? The observer changes the outcome? Hmm.

Merrick Feb 3, 2010 13:30:23

Replying to Squid Tempest

Squid Tempest wrote:

I don't misunderstand the placebo effect.

Sorry, i didn't mean to cast aspersions. I just took your comment that it was beyond placebo because it had 'real, physical differences' as an implication that placebo does not.

Squid Tempest wrote:

It might be possible for that to be attributable to a placebo, but the odds against it would be stacked high.

Placebo includes a range of reactions. That people can be diagnosed with terminal cancer and conquer it with prayer to Allah doesn't necessarily prove the god of Islam is working.

Squid Tempest wrote:

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.

Which is why we have to look at all the trials. And in randomised, controlled and double-blind trials, homeopathy's consisitently come up as no better than placebo.

Squid Tempest wrote:

I intend to retain an open mind until I've seen some pretty conclusive proof for myself one way or the other.

Proving a negative is tough, though. A lot of seeds might not germinate, it doesn't necessarily mean the whole packet is sterile - the 50th one you plant could sprout. It depends on how many non-results you need before you think 'this isn't going to work'

A study in the Lancet took 110 homeopathic studies from the Cochrane Library, and found there was no evidence of it working.

Squid Tempest wrote:

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.

I'm really pleased for your friend, and for you and everyone around her, that she's better. We cannot deny she got better; we cannot be sure from a single result that the homeopathic element was responsible. I'm willing to bet some people in her state can be cured by asking the Blessed Virgin. What we need to do is get a number of people in the state and subject them to double-blind trials, or at least compile the results of a large number of people who used the same treatment.

Squid Tempest wrote:

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.

Sorry to say it again, but that doesn't defy placebo. As Ben Goldacre explains:

"The placebo response is about far more than the pills – it is about the cultural meaning of a treatment, our expectation, and more. So we know that four sugar pills a day will clear up ulcers quicker than two sugar pills, we know that a saltwater injection is a more effective treatment for pain than a sugar pill, we know that green sugar pills are more effective for anxiety than red, and we know that brand packaging on painkillers increases pain relief."