Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 7:30 AM
25 online now:
candle2, Heathen, vimesey (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,576 Year: 9,612/19,786 Month: 2,034/2,119 Week: 70/724 Day: 2/68 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Faith healing:proof of god, or placebo effect?
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 61 of 77 (599489)
01-07-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phage0070
01-06-2011 5:01 PM


Re: Qi*
The brain doesn't have any nerves that are capable of transmitting pain, or the sensation of touch.

Yes. I had heard that. I wasnít so sure about the exact procedure used to remove a brain tumour. It turns out that do actually use some drugs. When they use acupuncture they use about half the quantity of drugs. Seems like something when compared to nothing.

Here is an example from National Center for Biotechnology Information

This looks like it is from Colorado State but I am not sure.

You must be gifted to spot all us mouth breathers from so far away. I may be mistaken about what I am seeing but you have provided nothing other than a belief to the contrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phage0070, posted 01-06-2011 5:01 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 01-07-2011 8:02 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 77 (599490)
01-07-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ProtoTypical
01-07-2011 7:24 PM


Re: Qi*
Dogmafood writes:

It turns out that do actually use some drugs. When they use acupuncture they use about half the quantity of drugs. Seems like something when compared to nothing.

As opposed to what exactly? They go through a calming procedure which involves needles for some reason or another, and they use less drugs. So? Is there any indication that the pain reduction is comparable? I don't see a study there, just "We did this, and then we did this."

Today they would drug you to the gills to pull a bullet out of your leg, but a hundred years ago you wouldn't get anything except maybe some alcohol. So does that prove there is "something compared to nothing" about their techniques? Of course it doesn't.

Now I am perfectly prepared to suppose that ritualized calming techniques can allow you to get by with using less pharmaceutical aid. In fact trepanning, which is basically the exact same procedure except for the manipulation of insensate tissue, was probably the first surgical procedure ever performed and predates the invention of anesthetics by oh... TEN THOUSAND YEARS. So if Stone Age humans can reproduce a nearly identical procedure using no drugs at all, why should I be impressed?

Dogmafood writes:

You must be gifted to spot all us mouth breathers from so far away.

If only that were so. If I were some savant, or possessing of extensive specialized or trivia knowledge on these subjects I would be much more forgiving. But I'm not, I am just a lay-person who happens to have been paying attention to the world we live in.

I am also of the mind that if you are going to claim that a multi-billion dollar industry is missing out on a phenomenon which defies established knowledge on the subject, it behooves you to do a little basic research on the topic before spouting off lest you risk looking like a blithering idiot. So don't come crying to me about your failings or the fact that I will call you on them. Either shut up until you have done your due diligence, or live with the consequences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-07-2011 7:24 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-08-2011 8:52 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1884
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 63 of 77 (599500)
01-07-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Panda
01-02-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Absotively posilutely
Panda, wonderfully, among other things, points out:

People do prescribe a positive attitude (to everybody continuously).

Never underguesstimate the unmitigated power of Positive Drinking.


- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Panda, posted 01-02-2011 3:56 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 64 of 77 (599504)
01-08-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phage0070
01-07-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Qi*
As opposed to what exactly? They go through a calming procedure which involves needles for some reason or another, and they use less drugs. So? Is there any indication that the pain reduction is comparable? I don't see a study there, just "We did this, and then we did this."

Something as opposed to not something. There is an indication that the acupuncture is having an effect. Why is that? They use less drugs. Why is that?

Today they would drug you to the gills to pull a bullet out of your leg, but a hundred years ago you wouldn't get anything except maybe some alcohol. So does that prove there is "something compared to nothing" about their techniques? Of course it doesn't.

What? One of us is blithering.

Now I am perfectly prepared to suppose that ritualized calming techniques can allow you to get by with using less pharmaceutical aid.

So we are in agreement. There is some tangible effect caused by acupuncture.

So if Stone Age humans can reproduce a nearly identical procedure using no drugs at all, why should I be impressed?

If we had to bore into your skull to remove the tumour would you prefer acupuncture or a caveman with a sharp stone?

Either shut up until you have done your due diligence, or live with the consequences.

What consequences phage0070? Not only have you not refuted what I have said you have agreed that there is some effect caused by acupuncture. What is the real world mechanism that allows this to happen?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phage0070, posted 01-07-2011 8:02 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Phage0070, posted 01-08-2011 12:33 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 77 (599525)
01-08-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ProtoTypical
01-08-2011 8:52 AM


Re: Qi*
Dogmafood writes:

Something as opposed to not something. There is an indication that the acupuncture is having an effect. Why is that? They use less drugs. Why is that?

Does it now? Does it *really*? What if they used less drugs simply because they used acupuncture; they didn't get equivalent effect, they just used fewer drugs because they utilized an alternate technique.

The fact that they changed their behavior isn't an indication that their behavior was effective. One is a *behavior* and one is an *effect*. Forgive me if I am belaboring the simple point but its rather important that you understand the distinction.

Dogmafood writes:

What? One of us is blithering.

I'll go over this really slowly so you can understand. Simply because a technique for dealing with an equivalent medical situation is used does not in and of itself indicate the effect or merit of that technique is equivalent. We use anesthetics when pulling bullets out of people's legs because it yields a superior effect than not; people experience less pain when we use anesthetics.

If we, for whatever reason, decided to use 50% fewer drugs or even no drugs at all this wouldn't indicate that we were getting equivalent effect out of our behavior. By extension we cannot conclude that our reason, if it is another behavior, had any effect whatsoever. Thats the connection between our differing techniques in bullet wound treatment and the differing techniques in brain surgery we were discussing. Do you see now?

Dogmafood writes:

So we are in agreement. There is some tangible effect caused by acupuncture.

No you blithering moron, thats still not proven. The acupuncture aspect of calming may well hinder the calming effect, along with introducing myriad sanitary concerns among others. Regardless, you haven't expressed any good reason to think that it was effective in any manner.

Normally I would guess that trying to remain calm would aid in the management of pain, but in these circumstances when dealing with someone who cannot distinguish "effective action" from just "action" I am compelled to follow a stricter standard.

Dogmafood writes:

If we had to bore into your skull to remove the tumour would you prefer acupuncture or a caveman with a sharp stone?

I would prefer the caveman with a sharp stone you *fucking moron*, because acupuncture isn't going to give me the hole in my head I apparently so desperately need. Acupuncture is a sideline act here, nobody is going to scratch a hole through someone's skull with an acupuncture needle.

As for if acupuncture would be an effective method of pain management, its important that we are clear on the difference between "Some people use acupuncture," and "Acupuncture is effective," before we move on.

Dogmafood writes:

What consequences phage0070?

The above consequences. I'm not going to rudely speculate about what cognitive handicaps you must have been functioning under because I suspect you are truly applying yourself. You are even now dimly straining to see what I am getting at about the difference between behavior and effective behavior, and through the fog and cobwebs of these infrequently traveled roads beginning to see a glimmer of truth.

But you aren't going to grasp that truth. You won't say "Oh, I was wrong to assume that just because they behaved differently that it indicates they must have been effective, much less that effect could be attributed to their chosen technique. I should actually look at some proper research before I draw any conclusions about that."

Instead you are going to feebly protest further, probably committing further intellectual pratfalls while stubbornly refusing to learn anything of value from this exchange. You *might* even attempt to dig up some questionable studies about the effectiveness of acupuncture to try to support your position, simultaneously demonstrating an abject ignorance of the issue at hand and an intellectual dishonesty of staggering levels.

But I am getting ahead of myself. There are two takeaway points for you here:

When someone behaves differently in a given situation, it * does not* mean that their behavior is equivalent in effectiveness to others. Until that is established there is no effect which can be attributed to anything, much less their alternate technique.

A sharp stone can be used by a stone-age man to cut through the scalp and scratch through the skull casing. Acupuncture can be used during modern surgical efforts to obtain the same effect. This in no way indicates that acupuncture alone is capable of performing the same procedure of either the modern surgical procedures or the stone-age man with a rock.

Once again I maintain that these misconceptions are the result of your lack of attention to detail rather than any inherent mental deficiency on your part, but that resolve is shaking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-08-2011 8:52 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by xongsmith, posted 01-08-2011 2:02 PM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 72 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-09-2011 8:51 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1884
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 66 of 77 (599533)
01-08-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phage0070
01-08-2011 12:33 PM


Re: Qi*
The caveman with a SHARP rock is not the alternative to acupuncture or more drugs. No - that would be the caveman with a BLUNT rock to knock you out so the brain surgery can proceed.

The issue is: does x units of acupuncture + .5 units drugs == 1 unit drugs?, when it comes to making the patient comfortable enough during the surgery so as not to be a problem.


- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Phage0070, posted 01-08-2011 12:33 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Phage0070, posted 01-08-2011 2:39 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 77 (599538)
01-08-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by xongsmith
01-08-2011 2:02 PM


Re: Qi*
xongsmith writes:

The caveman with a SHARP rock is not the alternative to acupuncture or more drugs. No - that would be the caveman with a BLUNT rock to knock you out so the brain surgery can proceed.

In which case I would choose "none of the above" as its the only choice which seems like it wouldn't be life-threatening. Acupuncture as performed by stone-age technology using bone needles or something similar and no standards of antiseptic seems more likely to make parts of my body rot off than calm me down. And using a blunt rock to knock me out for long enough to abrade through my skull would, besides the obvious permanent brain damage, probably require putting me into a coma and probable death.

So I would either grit my teeth and bear it, or eat some mushrooms and be stoned off my gourd.

xongsmith writes:

The issue is: does x units of acupuncture + .5 units drugs == 1 unit drugs?, when it comes to making the patient comfortable enough during the surgery so as not to be a problem.

Exactly, which Dogmafood doesn't seem to comprehend does not follow from simply saying they used 50% less drugs.

My concern isn't about the effectiveness of acupuncture, its about my original point that a lot of people simply don't pay attention to our world and proper standards of thinking. Thus my point about digging up evidence in support of acupuncture as missing the point and a dishonest tactic; the thrust of the argument is why and how people believe dubious claims for stupid reasons, not rendering a decision on those claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by xongsmith, posted 01-08-2011 2:02 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 68 of 77 (599593)
01-09-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ProtoTypical
01-04-2011 7:16 PM


Qi Wizz
I don't know if anyone is still interested in this conversation but it has stuck with me the last couple days.

Still interested, not able.

I am in partial agreement with you but not altogether.

Thatís because youíre willing to accept being partially wrong. Whether its the bit where you agree with me or the bit where you disagree with me that your wrong aboutÖ

I found the rest of the video with the Jedi master guy. It runs for an hour but adds an essential context if you are interested.

A little bit of hokum goes a long way. Unless the context was ďApril foolsĒ there is little that can be done to attain credibility.

Of much greater interest is when they show an operation to remove a brain tumour (about the 12 min mark). They use a combination of acupuncture and drugs to anaesthetize the patient. The interesting thing is that they only use 50% of the drugs that they would use in a western hospital. This seems to be a rather substantial effect to be caused by something that does not exist.

I have had two surgeries. Heart and (four) finger reattachment. After neither of them would I take any pain medís prescribed to me. I donít like them: they addle me. I was well able to withstand the discomfort. Thought very little of it, quite frankly. Nor did I need acupuncture. So, none of the drugs and none of the needles. But I had eaten hospital food in both cases. Think it could have been the hospital food?

Electromagnetic field? Dark energy? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as the saying goes.

When in the history of mankind has there been a lack of evidence for electromagnetic fields. Did bad weather only come upon us of late? Oh, say, 4350 years ago, hummm? As for dark matter it was the evidence that came first.

But yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But itís not evidence of presents either.

This belief has been held by millions of people for 2500 yrs or so.

It was held that the world was flat for a lot longer than that. Howíd that work out?

I am aware of the fallacy of popularity but why is there such a lack of PCDBC trials?

Youíll have to ask someone who knows what a PCDBC trial is for this one.

This is true but how long did it take life to adopt it?

Definitely before the trilobites. Likely before multicellular organisms. But if thatís here nor there Iím not catching it.

Qi is supposedly a flow of energy. How did life adopt a flow of energy that seems to be imperceptible? Unless something other than chemistry is going on within the brain this energy flow should be detectable. Herschel discovered infrared light because it screwed with his thermometers. Ritter discovered ultraviolet light because it screwed with his silver salts. Pit vipers beat out Hershel, and bees beat out Ritter. Currently, our capacity to resolve energies that screw with physics are well beyond that of what life can utilize. All indications are that there is no Qi.

Antibiotics existed long before we utilized them.

Anthropocentric much?

How did the learned medical community first react to the idea of keeping the hospital clean?

Dogmatism often gets in the way of progress but it keeps us from being fickle. Fickle gets in the way of knowing thereís progress to be made.

Perhaps this is the manifestation of our brains reacting to something that is there.

Perhaps. But that something doesnít effect chemistry or physics. So how does the brain detect it?


When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
óRoger Waters
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-04-2011 7:16 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 69 of 77 (599594)
01-09-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Panda
01-02-2011 3:56 PM


Re: When Time Avails
Lest I forget, I first want to give a shout out to Phage0070. I got the sense that you felt that I was coming across a bit hostile. Thanks, Phage, for raising the bar. Iím betting I look pretty mild right about now.

People do prescribe a positive attitude (to everybody continuously).
But not everyone listens, so people are tricked into 'self-healing' by being given a placebo.

From what Iíve noticed the only ones who die of their illnesses are those who are the most cheerful and kindest of people: those who were the first to lend a helping hand. The same crowd killed by drunken drivers, if I donít miss my guess. Itís bad enough that weíre not supporting our arguments with evidence, but do we have to resort to pablum?

If a car is speeding towards us we don't automatically run away. We have to intentionally avoid the object. There are many things that are required for our survival that have to be initiated by our minds.

What is being suggested is that placebos cause the mind to heal the body. Much the same way a feint attack will cause a boxer to dodge. The attack may not be real, but the reaction to it is. (The feint is not 'magic'.)

It also addresses any comment about the brain being unable to control our physiology beyond its normal behavior.

And this is why we canít conflate placebo and biofeedback. Biofeedback involves learning. Placebo does not.

Yes. the mind can control many things that we donít usually think about. A few electrodes on my auricular muscles and Iíll be wiggling my ears within a week. Whoop-dee-do comes to mind. More interestingly, however, a dog can learn to salivate at the sound of a bell. The brain learns associations.

A wax bead (I suggest a wax bead rather than a sugar pill for obvious reasons) could replace the bell to trigger salivation. Should we ascribe the autonomic salivary response to a placebo? Sounds like cheating to me.

With placebo there is no opportunity for the brain to learn an association between the treatment and the desired response.

So the story goes: If I go to my Dr. with a malady, which I presume I donít consciously know how to mentally remedy, when he gives me a pill and a chat, I show significant improvement. (If not significant why are we having this tÍte-ŗ-tÍte.)

Now, if I go to my Dr. for scabies and diarrhea and he treats me with a placebo telling me itís a powerful antipruritic and I donít know what that means, what will it treat?

Or is it only if I consciously know what the treatment is supposed to effect that I will note a specific improvement? But if my mind is unable to treat it when I consciously knew from the start I am not a fan of any form of runny goo extrusion, what new motive or information has the Dr. added to allow me to remedy it now?

I have read many reports where it seems that a placebo is used to stimulate a conditioned response. I have a modicum of doubt that they are not entirely bologna. However, I have never seen a report of an unconditioned response that was not attributable to any of the half dozen or so know affects: suggestibility, selective affirmation, gullibility, sycophancyÖ

Sorry, Panda, but I'm afraid I won't be able to come back to this for some months. You'll have to play with Phage. Wear a helmet.


When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
óRoger Waters
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Panda, posted 01-02-2011 3:56 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Phage0070, posted 01-09-2011 2:05 AM lyx2no has responded
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 01-09-2011 8:52 AM lyx2no has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 77 (599595)
01-09-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by lyx2no
01-09-2011 1:09 AM


Re: When Time Avails
lyx2no writes:

Lest I forget, I first want to give a shout out to Phage0070. I got the sense that you felt that I was coming across a bit hostile. Thanks, Phage, for raising the bar. Iím betting I look pretty mild right about now.

Being coddled hasn't done them any favors in the intellectual department. Pointing out that someone hasn't been paying attention and it has resulted in them being taken in by a cheat *is* doing them a favor.

When they persisted in their irresponsible delusion I happily applied the switch of public ridicule (at least such as the internet can offer). Any verbal thrashing I can possibly offer in a semi-anonymous forum such as this is mild to the point of triviality compared to the harm they might inflict on themselves or a loved one as a result of being taken in by medical mysticism. If I deeply offend someone yet prevent them from going to an acupuncturist for treatment of high blood pressure and thus perhaps prevent stroke or heart failure, I judge it a resounding success.

Furthermore I suspect that a certain forcefulness is required to get any sort of message across what appears to be a significant air gap. Lets not forget the supporters of these mystic treatments think nothing of ignoring prevailing modern medical knowledge in favor of their own opinions on the subject. That "helmet" that you mentioned is precisely what needs to be penetrated, and it won't happen gently.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lyx2no, posted 01-09-2011 1:09 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by lyx2no, posted 01-09-2011 6:35 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 71 of 77 (599602)
01-09-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Phage0070
01-09-2011 2:05 AM


Re: When Time Avails
I can't argue with that. I happen to believe one of the major causes of the placebo effect is our acceptance of things we cannot change. When we are satisfied that the Dr. has done what he can to alleviate the our complaint we stop complaining. No complaint = successful result. And then we die.

Bash away, sir. Bash away.


When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
óRoger Waters
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Phage0070, posted 01-09-2011 2:05 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 72 of 77 (599607)
01-09-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phage0070
01-08-2011 12:33 PM


Re: Qi*
Whilst your scathing rebuke is amusing might I suggest that you mix it up a little. Maybe a bit more cow bell.

In the interest of brevity lets skip down to the take away points.

When someone behaves differently in a given situation, it * does not* mean that their behavior is equivalent in effectiveness to others. Until that is established there is no effect which can be attributed to anything, much less their alternate technique.

Yes of course professor, even my brother/cousin Cletis understands that. I am not sure where you got the idea that I did not. Perhaps from one of your many assumptions.

I am pointing to the fact that fewer drugs are being used. You are saying that the surgeons are just using fewer drugs and the patient is not getting the equivalent relief. OK, sounds possible to me. I really donít know how likely that is. You have only offered it as your opinion. Do the surgeons just tell them to suck it up? Is the patient duped into enduring the procedure by sticking needles in their toes? Or is there no pain to begin with? Should we ignore the fact that they are using fewer drugs? What is going on here Phage0070? Is it like substituting derision for information while attempting to communicate?

What would a good study look like and who would it come from if all the people with brains have already decided that there is nothing to study? I bet you would make a good subject for acupuncture trials. What with your shrewd intelligence and admirable objectivity. You could volunteer. Just the thought of someone sticking needles into you makes me smile. And you know how when you smile you feel better? Of course maybe we only smile when we feel better. Oops...what am I thinking. The behaviour and effect probably are not even related. My evidence is really only anecdotal. In fact, I may not even actually feel better.

It seems to me that what you are railing about is not related to anything that I have actually said. However, you may rest assured that I take your point about making false associations.

Perhaps this little anecdote is something you can relate to.

Bacteriophages were first suspected in 1896. The first regulated clinical trial of efficacy in Western Europe (against ear infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa) was reported in the journal Clinical Otolaryngology in August 2009. source

Any chance that the same sort of delay is happening with regard to acupuncture.

Surely someone as intelligent as yourself can do better than arrogant dismissal. You remind of one of those people who reads a book and then carries on as if they wrote it.

Anyway, I have bored a little hole in my helmet of ignorance. Perhaps my stupid can drain out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Phage0070, posted 01-08-2011 12:33 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phage0070, posted 01-09-2011 2:15 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1883 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 73 of 77 (599608)
01-09-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by lyx2no
01-09-2011 1:09 AM


Re: When Time Avails
lyx2no writes:

From what Iíve noticed the only ones who die of their illnesses are those who are the most cheerful and kindest of people: those who were the first to lend a helping hand. The same crowd killed by drunken drivers, if I donít miss my guess. Itís bad enough that weíre not supporting our arguments with evidence, but do we have to resort to pablum?


This doesn't relate to my reply at all. What do drunken drivers have to do with any kind of treatment. You seem to be rambling.

I guess that you couldn't defend your point other than by claiming no-one is providing evidence.
Unfortunately for you, I have provided evidence - a link that you claimed to have read.
It is only you that is making unsupported arguments.

lyx2no writes:

And this is why we canít conflate placebo and biofeedback. Biofeedback involves learning. Placebo does not.


I wasn't conflating them.
I was talking about the placebo effect, not biofeedback.
This should have been apparent from "What is being suggested is that placebos cause the mind to heal the body." - which you even quoted.

lyx2no writes:

A wax bead (I suggest a wax bead rather than a sugar pill for obvious reasons) could replace the bell to trigger salivation. Should we ascribe the autonomic salivary response to a placebo? Sounds like cheating to me.


No. We should ascribe that specific salivary response to the wax bead placebo.

lyx2no writes:

With placebo there is no opportunity for the brain to learn an association between the treatment and the desired response.


That sounds correct.
Did someone claim that there should be?
I think you are probably conflating placebo effect with biofeedback.

lyx2no writes:

So the story goes: If I go to my Dr. with a malady, which I presume I donít consciously know how to mentally remedy, when he gives me a pill and a chat, I show significant improvement. (If not significant why are we having this tÍte-ŗ-tÍte.)

Now, if I go to my Dr. for scabies and diarrhea and he treats me with a placebo telling me itís a powerful antipruritic and I donít know what that means, what will it treat?


People don't need to know what the 'long words' mean - they just need to think that the placebo will work.
Did someone claim that people had to know medical terminology for placebos to work?

lyx2no writes:

Or is it only if I consciously know what the treatment is supposed to effect that I will note a specific improvement? But if my mind is unable to treat it when I consciously knew from the start I am not a fan of any form of runny goo extrusion, what new motive or information has the Dr. added to allow me to remedy it now?


"what new motive or information has the Dr. added to allow me to remedy it now?" ... hmmm ... what are we talking about ... ummm ... Oh! I remember!
A placebo!

lyx2no writes:

I have read many reports where it seems that a placebo is used to stimulate a conditioned response. I have a modicum of doubt that they are not entirely bologna. However, I have never seen a report of an unconditioned response that was not attributable to any of the half dozen or so know affects: suggestibility, selective affirmation, gullibility, sycophancyÖ


So you are happy to support 'suggestibility' as a cause, but not 'placebo effect'?
But as placebos involve suggestibility, denying 'placebo effect' also denies your 'suggestibility'.
(I am also chuckling at your "I have read many reports - but I don't believe them!" comment.)

lyx2no writes:

Sorry, Panda, but I'm afraid I won't be able to come back to this for some months. You'll have to play with Phage. Wear a helmet.


I hope Phage makes a more cogent argument than you do.
You seem to have forgotten whatever point you were trying to make.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lyx2no, posted 01-09-2011 1:09 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by lyx2no, posted 03-12-2011 8:09 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 77 (599630)
01-09-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ProtoTypical
01-09-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Qi*
Dogmafood writes:

Whilst your scathing rebuke is amusing might I suggest that you mix it up a little. Maybe a bit more cow bell.

I'm trying to take you *out* of familiar territory.

Dogmafood writes:

Yes of course professor, even my brother/cousin Cletis understands that. I am not sure where you got the idea that I did not. Perhaps from one of your many assumptions.

Actually it was one of *your* assumptions, namely the one where you assume that the fact they used 50% less drugs was indicative of "Something as opposed to not something. There is an indication that the acupuncture is having an effect." Except that it isn't and now you are trying to backtrack.

Dogmafood writes:

You are saying that the surgeons are just using fewer drugs and the patient is not getting the equivalent relief.

No I'm not. I am saying that they very well *could* not be getting the equivalent relief and thus there are no deductions of effectiveness to be drawn. The most we can draw from them using 50% fewer drugs is that perhaps they think that acupuncture is somewhat effective, but we have no data to support that.

Dogmafood writes:

What would a good study look like and who would it come from if all the people with brains have already decided that there is nothing to study?

Its a burden being able to predict your moves so far in advance, where you attempt to shift the focus from you drawing conclusions that don't follow into trying to back up your off-base assumptions afterwards.

But I will humor you and imagine a study where acupuncture is tested. First you would need a pain scale, hopefully calibrated to the individual through a standardized test. Then you would need a control group, another group taking drugs only, a group taking acupuncture and 50% drugs, a group taking acupuncture and placebo drugs, a group taking placebo acupuncture and a full dose of drugs, and a group taking placebo drugs and placebo acupuncture. Of course a professional can probably design a superior test and in fact likely has... but again that isn't what I was getting at.

Oh, and haven't you ever heard of a grimace? I suspect you were trying your hand at ridicule there but you seem to have missed the mark.

Dogmafood writes:

Bacteriophages were first suspected in 1896. The first regulated clinical trial of efficacy in Western Europe (against ear infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa) was reported in the journal Clinical Otolaryngology in August 2009.

Any chance that the same sort of delay is happening with regard to acupuncture.

quote:
Phages were discovered to be anti-bacterial agents but the medical trials performed in western countries were sub-standard to the point of not being scientifically viable, this was because the early tests were conducted poorly and without an idea of what a phage was. Phage therapy was shortly thereafter ruled out as untrustworthy much because many of the trials were conducted on totally unrelated diseases such as allergies and viral infections.

Quite possibly, considering there doesn't seem to be any particular idea about what acupuncture is actually supposed to be manipulating. But again thats not my point and I called this type of dishonesty a mile away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-09-2011 8:51 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-11-2011 1:06 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 75 of 77 (599838)
01-11-2011 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phage0070
01-09-2011 2:15 PM


Re: Qi*
You know, Phage0070, if you could deflate your ego long enough to see past it, you would notice that I am highly skeptical regarding the whole idea of qi. If you held yourself to the same exacting standards of honesty you would acknowledge that my actual position could be summarized as ĎWhatís going on here?í

Phage0070 says; Actually it was one of *your* assumptions, namely the one where you assume that the fact they used 50% less drugs was indicative of "Something as opposed to not something. There is an indication that the acupuncture is having an effect." Except that it isn't and now you are trying to backtrack.

We donít have to backtrack far, only to the point where we understand each other. I see how your understanding of my assertion that ďThere is an indication that the acupuncture is having an effect." is wrong in the context of everything else that I have said. I see also how I could have said it differently.

I also said

The interesting thing is that they only use 50% of the drugs that they
would use in a western hospital. This seems to be a rather substantial effect to be caused by something that does not exist.

This is a much stronger statement and is also wrong. If you were paying attention you would have noticed that.

You are absolutely correct to point out the fact that the fact that they use fewer drugs is not necessarily caused by the acupuncture. The people who do this type of thing ARE saying that it is caused by the acupuncture. What Ďrealí world explanation do you have?

Your super-sphinctered mind is good at pointing out what we donít know. What do we know?

Why are they able to use fewer drugs?

I am far more interested in what is right as opposed to who is right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phage0070, posted 01-09-2011 2:15 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Phage0070, posted 01-11-2011 5:51 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019