Homeopathy, Why people want to Believe

Did you know acupuncture needles can be stuck anywhere on the body and work just as well as plecebo does?
Wow, I didn't know that!

Did you know that you didn't read any of the links I posted where a quick google search turned up studies that suggest otherwise? :p

steve001 seems to habitually avoid work. Last night he posted what was clearly a lame MSM smear against a doctor I mentioned, but responded none - not a word - to anything else I had to say, nor did he even seem interested enough to contemplate reading the book I said essential in understanding the subject. What he did say, though, was that he hoped I didn't get cancer. He also didn't respond to anything that I'd posted - including reputable links - about constants changing. Nothing.

Honestly, some skeptics I'd be willing to take serious to very serious. I consider myself very skeptical of a lot of stuff . . . and have dismissed things many times that I initially accepted. But when someone posts things like what steve001 posted on Burzynski, and plain out ignores - along with Dakota - the changing constants information, I just have a hard time taking anything else he says serious.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
She's saying it does absolutely nothing beyond placebo (I'm pretty sure.)

Acupuncture works [as well as "sham acupuncture", aka, "placebo acupuncture" does.]

If you find acupuncture a sham, I realize this question may be silly, but I think it's worth asking anyway: have you ever had acupuncture?
 
It's worth considering here what's actually being compared:

Alternative remedies are rarely invasive or of as high a risk as western doctor/pharmaceutical medicine . . . which is what? The 3rd biggest killer in the U.S.? The number wafts around, depending on where you look, but it generally stays right in there. This is pretty important, and to me changes the nature of the implicit comparison, because what's basically being said is that the "skeptics" here trust mainstream modern medicine and that that's clearly the route to go. steve011's well wishes to me last night on not getting cancer imply that if I did I'd surely die of it quicker than those who seek a western doctor's advice - or steve011's advice.

And let's also consider some of the things advanced by modern science concerning health. When transfats came out, they actually advocated them, saying they were healthier for you than the natural animal and plant fats we'd been consuming for hundred of thousands of years! Oops! Science presented studies showing cigarette smoking to be harmless. How long was eating a diet low in fat suggested? What about the cholesterol craze? I mean, Jeez. What about statins? How about those little gems? I read last night while trying to find something else that what you eat doesn't effect cancer. This is laughable. There are also 90 day studies saying that GMOs are harmless. This is the side the skeptics are on, basically. Skeptical of holistic nutrition which advocates eating what we evolved to eat for 2 million years - yes, I was basically told I was wrong on this helping disease last night, but I suppose they're with "science" on these other studies.
 
She's saying it does absolutely nothing beyond placebo (I'm pretty sure.)

Acupuncture works [as well as "sham acupuncture", aka, "placebo acupuncture" does.]

How come the placebo gets to be used in this "oh, it's only the placebo effect" way?

Even if looked at something hard to measure like pain, we'd have to suggest that millions upon millions of people were simply wrong about their own assessments of how they felt before and afterwards. The skeptics, I'm pretty certain, will treat that simply as no problem whatsoever, though . . . a quick whisk of the hand will rid them of that woo problem.

And along the lines of large numbers of people being wrong, to suggest there's nothing at all to acupuncture is basically saying that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people - all those repeat clients - are idiots who can't tell how their bodies are reacting or feel.
 
If you find acupuncture a sham, I realize this question may be silly, but I think it's worth asking anyway: have you ever had acupuncture?

I think she's referring to "sham" used along other forms of stimulation in acupuncture studies, an example being stimulating a point that is not a "real" acupuncture point. Other alternatives often include superficial stimulation and different modes of stimulation such as ultrasound, heat, electromagnetism, and maybe others I haven't heard about.

There is apparently some homogeneity in efficacy, but it seems there are definite differences as revealed by fMRI imaging, if not always in efficacy, then at least in modes of operation, though the study sizes often seem small.

There does seem to be a good trend for supporters though(not very hard considering the field started as complete bunk in the eye of most medical researchers), so I'm interested in seeing further studies.
 
I think she's referring to "sham" used along other forms of stimulation in acupuncture studies, an example being stimulating a point that is not a "real" acupuncture point. Other alternatives often include superficial stimulation and different modes of stimulation such as ultrasound, heat, electromagnetism, and maybe others I haven't heard about.

There is apparently some homogeneity in efficacy, but it seems there are definite differences as revealed by fMRI imaging, if not always in efficacy, then at least in modes of operation, though the study sizes often seem small.

There does seem to be a good trend for supporters though(not very hard considering the field started as complete bunk in the eye of most medical researchers), so I'm interested in seeing further studies.
Yeah, you're right.

But my hypothetical question would still stand for skeptics with acupunture (though not necessarily other alt therapies): have they experienced it? (I can't wait to hear the unfunny responses to that one . . . )

Because I have had acupunture and you'd be hard to pressed to convince me that what I felt afterwards was "in my mind" or "placebo." If it was placebo induced . . . (say, my acupuncturist had been a skeptic who actually used sham spots to show they produce the same results) then I'd say it was a very incredible placebo/sham-spot-acunpuncture result.
 
Last edited:
It's worth considering here what's actually being compared:

Alternative remedies are rarely invasive or of as high a risk as western doctor/pharmaceutical medicine . . . which is what? The 3rd biggest killer in the U.S.? The number wafts around, depending on where you look, but it generally stays right in there. This is pretty important, and to me changes the nature of the implicit comparison, because what's basically being said is that the "skeptics" here trust mainstream modern medicine and that that's clearly the route to go. steve011's well wishes to me last night on not getting cancer imply that if I did I'd surely die of it quicker than those who seek a western doctor's advice - or steve011's advice.

And let's also consider some of the things advanced by modern science concerning health. When transfats came out, they actually advocated them, saying they were healthier for you than the natural animal and plant fats we'd been consuming for hundred of thousands of years! Oops! Science presented studies showing cigarette smoking to be harmless. How long was eating a diet low in fat suggested? What about the cholesterol craze? I mean, Jeez. What about statins? How about those little gems? I read last night while trying to find something else that what you eat doesn't effect cancer. This is laughable. There are also 90 day studies saying that GMOs are harmless. This is the side the skeptics are on, basically. Skeptical of holistic nutrition which advocates eating what we evolved to eat for 2 million years - yes, I was basically told I was wrong on this helping disease last night, but I suppose they're with "science" on these other studies.

I'd like to extend this with a personal anecdote:

I had moderate acne as a teenager. I was told that they (the medical/scientific community) used to think it was caused by what one ate, but that they no longer did. I believed this, of course, because I fully trusted the medical community . . . while I ate hy-top (sp?) microwavable pizzas or hot-pockets for lunch and corn flakes (or worse) with added sugar for breakfast . . . and practically no fresh veggies or fruit or raw meat or grass fed meat or butter or any such thing. What my dermatologist did do though, instead of recommeding a diet change, was prescribe me some acutane . . . probably only a few steps removed from being poison . . . there are lawsuits over actune stuff now, for what I think are probably good reasons, to put it in perspective.

I also had a time in my late 20s where I started having some health troubles. I ended up finding a decent amount of hidden mold in the house I was renting. I remember asking an allergy doctor (forget what they're called) about it - the mold - and he told me point blank that there was no evidence that (the black) mold (which I'd found in considerable abundance) did any harm whatsoever. He said that while walking out the door, literally. And you know, with the mold, it actually may so turn out that that's the case, that it's true it does nothing adverse to us. But, I believe there's very, very good historical reason to trust the scientifically based medical community a lot less than most people do . . .
 
Last edited:
But, I believe there's very, very good historical reason to trust the scientifically based medical community a lot less than most people do . . .

I am very, very much not someone who takes all MDs words as gospel. :) While most MDs I've encountered are smart, and several have seemed flat-out brilliant, I've also met a couple that left me wondering how they ever made it through med school.

Re: acne...doctors (and writers for Women's magazines) used to just kind of assume that eating greasy food causes acne, or that the getting the grease on your skin does. That turned out to not be true, and I'm not sure a lot of research has been done either way to figure out what's up there beyond that. I guess it's just not considered the most urgent medical thing out there. I don't know if this have ever been studied or not, but personally I suspect it's hormone-immune system reaction/interaction of some sort. When I was 16, I went "fruitarian" and that seemed to cure mine. Could have been coincidence.

Re: the doc walking out the door and dismissing the black mold...1) I'm pretty sure (?) most of the toxic mold fear was baseless hysteria, and 2) it's the insurance companies that make doctors not spend time with their patients.

Re: acupuncture, I've never tried it, but would be willing to, depending on how much pain I was in.
 
I don't disagree. I guess I'm just thinking more about the "costs" and "benefits" (not necessarily monetary) of the different types of nothings and their appeals to various demographics.

In the case of public hospitals in the 30s, the poor weren't exactly using the "E.R." of the time as a free clinic for colds, flus, etc, and today, the wealthy are being targeted by advertisers pushing "lifestyle, natural, self-image" products and philosophies as "health-promoting".

I agree that the window dressing varies (sometimes considerably) in terms of costs (including harm) and benefits.

Linda
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10643726

It sounds like you're claiming to know for sure that "sticking needles into skins" does absolutely nothing,...

No, I said that people claim that sticking needles in your body 'works', based on the same kinds of processes of observation and reasoning that has led us to draw all sorts of false conclusions. This holds regardless of whether or not sticking needles into your skin does absolutely nothing.

I havn't researched this in depth or anything but I have heard things to the contrary.

Perhaps you know about these studies but found them lacking in some respects? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your criticism and how you feel they might be improved to the point of general acceptance.

I don't understand why you think those studies are relevant? When people talk about a remedy that 'works', it will be about something that made their acne less severe, or removed the symptoms of their cancer, or lessened their back pain. This is what is meant by efficacy or effectiveness.

However, regardless of what sort of research is performed on acupuncture or needling nowadays, the claims made in the past were not based on studies of effectiveness.

Linda
 
She's saying it does absolutely nothing beyond placebo (I'm pretty sure.)

Acupuncture works [as well as "sham acupuncture", aka, "placebo acupuncture" does.]

There seems to be a few evidence-based claims of marginal clinical significance which can be made for needling, so I don't think it can be said that acupuncture does absolutely nothing. I'm saying that the claims made for acupuncture as it was developed as a system of medicine have almost nothing to do with the handful of evidence-based claims we might make now.

Linda
 
Last edited:
It's worth considering here what's actually being compared:

Alternative remedies are rarely invasive or of as high a risk as western doctor/pharmaceutical medicine . . . which is what? The 3rd biggest killer in the U.S.? The number wafts around, depending on where you look, but it generally stays right in there. This is pretty important, and to me changes the nature of the implicit comparison, because what's basically being said is that the "skeptics" here trust mainstream modern medicine and that that's clearly the route to go. steve011's well wishes to me last night on not getting cancer imply that if I did I'd surely die of it quicker than those who seek a western doctor's advice - or steve011's advice.

I guess it depends upon what you are hoping to accomplish. Under a system where therapies are ineffective, but less harmful, many, many more people will die. But in a legalistic sense, they won't have died from your therapy. Which is better? If your interest is only in your product, then clearly it is better to have more people dying from their disease. If your interest is in preventing death, then it is better to have fewer deaths, even if some of those deaths will now be attributed to your product.

And let's also consider some of the things advanced by modern science concerning health. When transfats came out, they actually advocated them, saying they were healthier for you than the natural animal and plant fats we'd been consuming for hundred of thousands of years! Oops! Science presented studies showing cigarette smoking to be harmless. How long was eating a diet low in fat suggested? What about the cholesterol craze? I mean, Jeez. What about statins? How about those little gems? I read last night while trying to find something else that what you eat doesn't effect cancer. This is laughable. There are also 90 day studies saying that GMOs are harmless. This is the side the skeptics are on, basically. Skeptical of holistic nutrition which advocates eating what we evolved to eat for 2 million years - yes, I was basically told I was wrong on this helping disease last night, but I suppose they're with "science" on these other studies.

Well, much of what you refer to has more to do with marketing and media hype than with science. However, putting that aside, it is inevitable that recommendations will change, sometimes dramatically, under an evidence-based system - because the process of asking and answering important questions about how to maximize health, with increasingly good evidence, is dynamic, rather than static, and good evidence is just as likely to overthrow our prior recommendations as it is to support them.

Linda
 
How come the placebo gets to be used in this "oh, it's only the placebo effect" way?

I think that's because the "placebo effect" isn't all that distinguishable from doing nothing. Maybe we'll reach a point where trivial marginal effects are worth pursuing, with respect to health. But there are still many ways in which substantial and clinically relevant differences can be made, and it makes sense to put resources towards those areas first. And this doesn't even mean coming up with a new wonder drug. Removing disparities in access to medical care would lead to a much greater effect on health than curing cancer, for example.

Even if looked at something hard to measure like pain, we'd have to suggest that millions upon millions of people were simply wrong about their own assessments of how they felt before and afterwards.

Yet the research shows that even five minutes later, people consistently remember that their pain was worse before they took the drug and much better after they took the drug, than it actually was at the time.

http://www.painjournalonline.com/article/S0304-3959(99)00081-0/abstract

I think the biggest surprise which comes from performing randomized, placebo-controlled trials, is how wrong we can be in our assessments.

Linda
 
It's worth considering here what's actually being compared:

Alternative remedies are rarely invasive or of as high a risk as western doctor/pharmaceutical medicine . . . which is what? The 3rd biggest killer in the U.S.? The number wafts around, depending on where you look, but it generally stays right in there. This is pretty important, and to me changes the nature of the implicit comparison, because what's basically being said is that the "skeptics" here trust mainstream modern medicine and that that's clearly the route to go. steve011's well wishes to me last night on not getting cancer imply that if I did I'd surely die of it quicker than those who seek a western doctor's advice - or steve011's advice.
You've misunderstood what I am saying. Let me try again. I think before first trying so called alternative therapies proven therapies should be tried. If they fail then as a last resort non proven therapies are ok

And let's also consider some of the things advanced by modern science concerning health. When transfats came out, they actually advocated them, saying they were healthier for you than the natural animal and plant fats we'd been consuming for hundred of thousands of years! Oops! Science presented studies showing cigarette smoking to be harmless. How long was eating a diet low in fat suggested? What about the cholesterol craze? I mean, Jeez. What about statins? How about those little gems? I read last night while trying to find something else that what you eat doesn't effect cancer. This is laughable. There are also 90 day studies saying that GMOs are harmless. This is the side the skeptics are on, basically. Skeptical of holistic nutrition which advocates eating what we evolved to eat for 2 million years - yes, I was basically told I was wrong on this helping disease last night, but I suppose they're with "science" on these other studies.
To the underlined first. I don't think it is a true picture you paint what skeptics think. To all the rest, mistakes were made and acknowledged.
 
steve001 seems to habitually avoid work. Last night he posted what was clearly a lame MSM smear against a doctor I mentioned, but responded none - not a word - to anything else I had to say, nor did he even seem interested enough to contemplate reading the book I said essential in understanding the subject. What he did say, though, was that he hoped I didn't get cancer. He also didn't respond to anything that I'd posted - including reputable links - about constants changing. Nothing.

Honestly, some skeptics I'd be willing to take serious to very serious. I consider myself very skeptical of a lot of stuff . . . and have dismissed things many times that I initially accepted. But when someone posts things like what steve001 posted on Burzynski, and plain out ignores - along with Dakota - the changing constants information, I just have a hard time taking anything else he says serious.
I have not ignored the changing constants. I choose not to persue posting further commentary avoiding the wrath of Andy, he would not what I have to say.

As for Burzynsk I don't know why you would trust such dubious research, which brings me back to the original question at the heart of homeopathic treatment, why people want to believe?
 
I have not ignored the changing constants. I choose not to persue posting further commentary avoiding the wrath of Andy, he would not what I have to say.

As for Burzynsk I don't know why you would trust such dubious research, which brings me back to the original question at the heart of homeopathic treatment, why people want to believe?
Read Ralph Moss's book which criticizes mainstream routes and you'll likely have to question why people want to believe in, say, radiation over alt therapies or doing nothing.
 
Yeah, you're right.

But my hypothetical question would still stand for skeptics with acupunture (though not necessarily other alt therapies): have they experienced it? (I can't wait to hear the unfunny responses to that one . . . )

Because I have had acupunture and you'd be hard to pressed to convince me that what I felt afterwards was "in my mind" or "placebo." If it was placebo induced . . . (say, my acupuncturist had been a skeptic who actually used sham spots to show they produce the same results) then I'd say it was a very incredible placebo/sham-spot-acunpuncture result.

You see that's where a great difference exists in how our thought processes work. In this case, you know personal interpretive experience trumps all. A skeptic such as myself would say even though I feel much better how can I and why should I be convinced acupuncture worked.

The most interesting question you raise with your answers is the psychology underlying belief?
 
Read Ralph Moss's book which criticizes mainstream routes and you'll likely have to question why people want to believe in, say, radiation over alt therapies or doing nothing.
Do you have the medical credentials to understand where he may be right or may be wrong? My guess is no.
Since you've read the book I'd like you to read the books review.
Book Review
The Cancer Industry:
Unraveling the Politics

Author: Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
Publisher: Paragon House, New York
Reviewed by: Saul Green, Ph.D.

Ralph Moss would like you to believe that research institutions, hospitals, medical associations, government agencies, foundations and large corporations-which he calls "the cancer industry"-suppress innovation in order to maximize profits. Many of the book's allegations are repeated from a 1980 edition titled The Cancer Syndrome. Both versions have been carefully contrived to promote distrust and fear of scientifically-based cancer treatment.
The first part of The Cancer Industry, entitled "Proven Methods (That Often Don't Work)"- is intended to undermine confidence in scientific methods. The second part, which occupies half the book, promotes the gamut of "unproven therapies." The final two parts expound Mr. Moss's opinion that "the direction of cancer management appears to be shaped by those forces financially interested in the outcome of the problem." He even claims that big business is so powerful and so determined to make money that it has blocked scientists and government agencies from paying more attention to cancer prevention.
Readers unacquainted with the facts may find Moss's arguments disquieting, if not persuasive. My reaction was quite different. Having personal knowledge of many of the events he described, I found reading his versions very painful. Although the book is loaded with carefully selected facts, it is also loaded with distortions and misrepresentations. For example:
  • Insinuating that an executive-level position made him privy to the inner workings at Sloan-Kettering Institute, Moss represents that he was assistant director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center during the mid-1970s. However, documents I have from Sloan-Kettering officials indicate that his only title was "science writer."
  • Moss suggests that a Sloan-Kettering researcher, Kanematsu Sugiura, found that laetrile was effective against cancer in mice and that his work was never repeated or refuted. The book fails to mention that at least six major cancer research institutions did repeat Sugiura's experiments and had negative results.
  • Moss endorses the work of the late Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, who claimed that cancer is caused by a bacterium she named Progenitor cryptocides. He neglected to mention that scientists don't believe her hypothesis because there is no proof that the organism exists. Neither Dr. Wheeler nor anyone else has been able to produce a cancer by injecting her alleged organisms into experimental animals. Independent researchers have found numerous cases where cancer tissues did not contain the organism. In addition, cultures of "Progenitor cryptocides" from Dr. Wheeler's own lab, which were grown in other labs, turned out to be common forms of Staphylococci that inhabit the skin.
Moss appears to feel no need to question any assertions or possible motives of those whose work he extols. He is apparently content to regurgitate the tales they tell about themselves, their experiences with patients, and their scientific ability. *The book is dangerous because it may induce desperate cancer patients to abandon sound, scientifically based medical care for a worthless "alternative."

Dr. Green (1925-2007) was a biochemist who did cancer research at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for 23 years. He consulted on scientific methodology and had a special interest in unproven methods.. This review was originally published in the May/June 1991 issue of Nutrition Forum. Moss's Ph.D. degree is in classics.

*Alternative therapies that work don't remain on the fringe become medicine.
 
You see that's where a great difference exists in how our thought processes work. In this case, you know personal interpretive experience trumps all. A skeptic such as myself would say even though I feel much better how can I and why should I be convinced acupuncture worked.

The most interesting question you raise with your answers is the psychology underlying belief?

That's ridiculous that I should question why or how I felt (very much) better after leaving an acupunturist and that not doing so implies some sort of "psychology of belief." This is typical weak steve001 style.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top