Believes it works. Google placebo effect

http://www.m.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect

I wasn't negating the OPs conclusions at all

This is more about those who refuse solidly backed medical interventions for their children.

The placebo effect is very real and can be very positive. Some snake oil "remedies" get positive reviews from people due to the placebo effect.

The one that really bothers me is "Air Born". It is snake oil and a lot of people pay a lot of money for it….

but, then again, if they feel better and it does not harm, I guess it's not such a big deal.

I think there is a certain placebo effect seen with faith healing as well. Whenever that happens, it reinforces the belief that it actually works.

The important line here is when parents reject widely accepted medical interventions because of their religious beliefs.

Deciding to deny yourself care is one thing. Deciding that for a child or other person unable to make an informed decision is quite another.

Kids deserve a lot more than hoping for a placebo effect. Unbelievable.

because there is a reinforcing placebo effect at times?

Really?

That is what is truly unbelievable.

child

I was suggesting perhaps some of these "miraculous" remissions, which are far a few between, may have a placebo effect involved.

I problem should not have brought it into this discussion though

without getting treatment for proven evidence based medicine.

I obviously agree with your points about adult verses child

But that in no way justifies denying a child legitimate care, including vaccines.

wrong way, and that was not my intention either.

However, there are studies out there that support the premise that those receiving treatment for an illness seem to recover faster with a positive attitude.

Than a placebo, imo, is that if it fails to work, then it was gods will for it to not work. They died from "sin" or something rather than an untreated disease.

of established medical interventions can be dangerous.

My point was that the placebo effect can be self-reinforcing when people really believe that something works.

It can help non-specific symptoms unrelated to disease, aches and pains and the so called maladies of life. But it is hopeless against infection. In other words, placebo medicine is basically useless other than for those non-specific symptoms, which tend to be self-limiting anyway.

In double blind placebo controlled studies, the placebo arm presumes a null effect and the null hypothesis, that the treatment under study does not work. To elevate placebo beyond a null effect would be a rather large mistake.

That it is why it is unethical for physicians to prescribe placebo treatments. They ethically cannot lie to their patients. And at any rate, placebo medicine does little more than the placebo effect of the actual patient/doctor intervention.

Regards,
longship

If a patient is told upfront that some of what they receive may be placebo and they agree to that, it is legitimate to use it.

In double blind studies, there is an expected placebo effect, but, again, the patients are aware that they may be receiving a placebo.

The mind is a powerful thing. Much too often, we treat things that don't really need intervention.

in clinical trials, on anything but subjective results like pain, is not very strong.

Here are two analysis that survey the data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535498

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2001/1201/p1886.html

So much of what is measured in trials depends on patient and observer reports.

If you dismiss it, you run the risk of really misreading your data. That's why all studies worth their salt are placebo controlled.

Similar to another discussion I am having, this is one of those areas where one can find articles to back up whatever your opinion might be.

At any rate, it exists but should never be substituted for legitimate medical intervention or given to a patient unknowingly.

Ever buy Air Born?

there is no cure for the common cold.

The thing about placebos is their main use is comparing them to the drug or treatment being tested, seeing if the treatment works better than something with no active ingredient. The data for placebos vs no treatment is sketchier.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Air Born is one of the hottest things on the cold and flu market. People believe and will testify to you that it is effective.

There is zilch evidence that it does anything other than a placebo effect.

Placebos are used all day long all over the world. The shelves of your local drug store are full of them. Their main legitimate use may be in research, but their real main use is in retail sales.

I was agreeing it's snake oil.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

have failed. Most likely it is due to an immune response. In fact the direction where treatments for cancer is going is to target only the malignant cells, while leaving the healthy ones alone, unlike many paradigms which go after both malignant and healthy cells.

I think within 10 years there will be dramatic changes in the treatment of many diseases, focusing at the molecular level

But, as you wrote, spontaneous remissions are rare. No ethical doctor would prescribe a placebo for cancer just in case the patient might have a spontaneous remission. For one thing, it is likely that many so-called spontaneous remissions of cancer might be misdiagnoses. Science based medicine is not perfect. Such things happen.

The advances in cancer treatment over my life have been astounding, yet incremental. There are many cancers which are very treatable now that were doom and gloom when I was young. Breast cancer comes to mind. And there are cancers which are still doom and gloom. Certain pancreatic cancers comes to mind.

The research these days is to make chemotherapy target just the cancer. (Although that has been always the goal.) but the physicians are doing it much, much better these days. And new technologies ought to be bringing on new and safer treatments, as they have during my approaching 70 years.

It is just a long, difficult climb. Cancer is not just one disease; it is thousands of diseases. And biology is extremely complex. There is no one cure. But we are making headway. Which is good.

...that the placebo effect does not actually heal you, as they were sharing ridiculous claims like the placebo effect being proof you can heal/cure yourself with the power of your mind!!!! Take that modern medical science!!!!



Ugh...

it wouldn't frequently be at odds with science and medicine, but then again it wouldn't be religion either.

and still believe in evidence based science and medicine

I did not say that "if you are religious you are therefore at odds with science", I said you might be. People can be religious and not also be idiots when it comes to medicine.

Are you making the claim that anyone who's interpretation of religion is at odds with science has a false interpretation? That would seem to be a suspect claim to me. I see no viable way to divide religious interpretations into "true interpretations" and "false interpretations". Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses are "true believers" as far as I can tell.

is the distinction I am making, and there is no doubt in my mind that those who take the bible literally would be at odds with those that don't, however, I do not see the reverse being true.

However, you bring up some interesting situations for a good discussion I think

Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

but literally no one can. There are so many blatantly contradictory passages, a person HAS to ignore at least some of them, or come up with some far-fetched explanation why that part doesn't apply. It was a translation error. Or a copyist's error. There are a million excuses.

through the bible, not questioning

that all believers take some part of the Bible literally.

I know there are those that proclaim to take it all literally (even if they don't) and they are usually referred to as literalists, but most take some part of it.

We've had such discussions here.

Last edited Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:09 AM - Edit history (1)

that is widely misunderstood to be the claim that the bible is word for word the infallible exact utterances of god. There are likely many evangelical and fundamentalist believers who think that is what their sect preaches as well, but if you go look at what their theologians actually say, it isn't. They think they are finding the hidden meanings within the text, that the texts contain the divine words, just not in plain text.

they seem to always be explaining what God means by his cryptic words.

How dare you think your beliefs trump those of others.

Oh wait, that's right, it's OK to dictate standards for others that you don't follow yourself. It's OK to mock, bash, discount, criticize, dismiss etc. the beliefs that YOU think are wrong. Carry on, cbayer. SSDD.

Wait a minute, I think you just did.

I'm not the one with double standards, however. Talk to your dear, perfect friend.

My dear friend (one of many here, I hope) and I disagree on many issues. But I do not choose friends by their opinions, as long as they can carry on a respectful discussion. And I would not presume to make a personal attack because of a disagreement.

However, as some have said, actions speak louder than words.

cbayer expressed no opinion in this OP. Plus, you are aware that she has you on ignore. So it invites the question: Why did you post a personal attack aimed at her when you know she would not see it?

I just cannot understand such behavior.

We've been down this road before, trotsky. What you are doing accomplishes nothing but making the Religion Group suck more. I agree with you on religion, but I find this kind of behavior indefensible.

On edit: I apologize for the double post. DU was acting up -- either that or my connection. I self-deleted one of them.

Holding others to standards that one sees fit to ignore for themselves is a significant barrier to real discussion.

It makes the group suck. Please talk to your friend.

On edit: I also know that your friend takes people on and off ignore all the time, even me. So as she herself told someone else:

I argue against opinion, not the person.

cbayer expressed zero opinion here. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. She merely posted a link and some content related to religion.

Yet you responded with a personal attack for an opinion she did not express. Plus, knowing that she has you on ignore. And I am not going to accept your special pleading that she takes people on and off ignore as an excuse for your reprehensible post.

You have no justification. I suggest you self-delete. And I will gladly do likewise.

On edit: and on this OP, I happen to agree with Paul Offit, of whom I am a huge fan. He's been fighting the anti-vaccination loons for years.

Did you even read the OP, or click through?

Thanks for checking in again, longship. Let me know when you are ready to hold yourself and your dear friends to the same standards you hold others.

But not because of mere opinions or beliefs.

And it is not your opinions which I object to. It is your behavior. Well, not all your behavior. I have read many of your well thought out posts. You are intelligent and well spoken. I find myself agreeing more than disagreeing.

But this thing about cbayer. What are you trying to accomplish? What's the end game for you? Or is it to just be a nuisance to her for no obvious reason. That might be termed stalking. But as you know she has you on ignore. It is doubly puzzling why you seemingly put so much effort into this.

And from what I know of your stance on religion I cannot believe that you object to the Paul Offit article posted in the OP. And since you did not even address the OP, I wonder whether you even read it before you posted your hideous personal attack.

Again, if you self delete. I will do the same. Let's stop this crapola. Both of us.

I am aware that three of them continue to reply to me, with personal attacks, while I have them on ignore. Will you call them out as you continually do to me?

In fact, in a personal message a long time ago to you, I challenged you to just call ONE of them out publicly. In return, I would have never replied to cbayer again - protecting your friend from criticism just as you wished. You didn't even respond.

Show me YOUR actions match your words, instead of singling me out for personal attacks. Until then, you have absolutely zero credibility, nor do I owe you a damn thing.

"Hideous" - LMFAO. Read what your friends write, then come back and tell me how "hideous" what I said was.

You double down yet again.

Let me put it simply, but bluntly.

1. I substantially agree with your opinions on religion. And you have posted many responses to which I can support wholeheartedly.

2. But I find some of your behavior similar to a child having a tantrum. You seem to play the butt hurt card as an excuse for what one can reasonably call stalking. Or poisoning the well. Or whatever. You know she has you on ignore. And I am not at all buying your lame "she takes you off ignore" special pleading. That is no fucking excuse for posts like yours in this thread.

My questions remain.

Why do you do it?
What is your end game?

I mean other than to make the DU Religion Group suck more.

I'm placing you on ignore. Then you can figure out what you want your endgame to be. Will you follow your own advice? Will you cease responding to me? Or damn the double standards, full steam ahead?

Your choice.

An opportunity to stand down and save face. I offered it twice.

You might not see this since I am by now on ignore. But let the rest reading here see the option you took.

So I stand by my posts here.

a ignores b does not imply b ignores a. Nobody has compelled cbayer to put anyone on ignore, that is her choice. Her posts are also her choice. This is a message board where when one posts a message, it is with the expectation that it will be read and responded to. Even by people you can't see.

But I pretty much know people's opinions here. And I find it very difficult to believe that my friend trotsky was responding to this OP, given that it was authored by Paul Offit against faith healing.

His post was a blatant personal attack out of left field.

There is some undoubtedly bad mojo between cbayer and trotsky. That happens. And cbayer has had him on ignore for some time. And there is also some bad mojo between me and trotsky, but I generally let that slide. (Plus, I agree with his religious opinions.) That is unless he steps over the line, which he clearly has here.

This is an article with which I would think he would support wholeheartedly. But he personally attacks the poster. Why? He's done this before with cbayer, and I have called him on it. This especially since he knows she has him on ignore.

So... Why?
What is to be gained by such behavior?

I just don't understand this, Warren. I would respectfully request your take on it.
It seems like bullying to me, something for which I confess that I have a rather low tolerance.

I invite your PM, if you wish.

Cbayer hides behind "you can't prove that it isn't" assertions for religiosity that she approves of, and then disparages claims that are equally unprovable for religiosity she disapproves of. You know that, we all know that, and it is a dishonest intellectual position. Pointing that out seems to be the opposite of "out of left field".

What is to be gained? Probably nothing. What is to be gained by any of this here? Ultimately all of existence is meaningless. Meanwhile as long as we are going to discuss religion in this forum, nobody's opinions are off limit.

And no, having this discussion in private is even more pointless than having it out in the open.

People should disagree with her when she does it. That is fine. Situation normal, eh?

But that is no excuse for what comes down to stalking and bullying. And you know that is happening, Warren.

I am basically with you on this, except I do not think it's pointless.

Thanks.

This is a discussion board. You post a message here and people respond to it. That is not stalking and bullying and your insistence that it is, but only for some people, is also dishonest.

And when it is done repeatedly, and in this case a non-sequitur response.

Well, I don't claim to know who all stalkers are here. But when I see it I want to act against it. It makes DU suck.

And I admit that this discussion probably adds to that suckage. However, maybe not if people would treat others with mutual respect no matter their disagreements.

Thanks again, Warren.

And for the final time: ignore is what you do to not see other people's posts, not some barrier you can put up to block people from seeing or responding to your posts. If you don't want people to respond to your posts, don't post. I have no idea who has me on ignore, and that is the way the system was designed. If you think it should work some other way, might I suggest the ATA forum?

The post's intent was only to poison the thread. And knowing trotsky's religious views, why would he post it under an OP he likely would agree with. The sole purpose was to disrupt.

Really your outrage is entirely misplaced and your characterization of his post as a personal attack is bullshit. If you honestly think it was a personal attack then alert on the fucking post and get it over with. I'm sure a jury would agree with you as your case is so persuasive.

I agree that my outrage may be misplaced. However, I tend to prefer that people be respectful to each other here, no matter of their opinions. Maybe I am delusional for that. I must confess that.

Thanks, Warren. Let's let this drop now. I will take your responses into consideration. You have my word on that.

There are no excuses for person attacks in this forum. Religion is, as always, a divisive issue. But, in my opinion, the extent to which one uses that as an excuse to make personal attacks is the extent that one has no argument.

I know that my posts here may be viewed as divisive. However, they are a plea for calm, intelligent discussion instead of these personal attacks. Those are my main goals here. (Plus, religion is an interest.) I would hope that others would see it that way. I cannot believe that any rational person could credibly argue for personal attacks.

Thank you, all of you, for suffering my pleas for peace.

And, as always, my best regards.