Palacebo a fake or Scientific Cephalic Effect

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Burrell
If, as you say, the homeopathic community are not interested in quanitfying their claims then no 'qualified' or 'unqualified' questions of mine can move it forward.

I am sorry that, from the wording and typographical errors on your previous post, you seem to have taken my appology for not being specific earlier as an attack on yourself. That was not my intention and I regret that you clearly feel that way.

I simply wish to learn and to try and forward discussion.

Steve,

What I'm trying to tell you is that, if you want to further the debate when dealing with believers, it is always best to state, up front, the rules of evidence. Kumar's already said he knows this vet who has cured dogs and cats and people's pet killer bees. If he continues in that vein, we'll be going back and forth with skeptics saying "no way," and kumar saying "way."

Here, though, is the big catch. If, then, you correct the error and say "no, no, I meant good evidence. Solid, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiments, etc., etc." you will be accused of (and guilty of) the No True Scotsman maneuver.

You have to think of some of these characters as logical escape artists and be forthright and up front with what you really want to see.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Powa

Placebo doesn't work "by this CPE thingie". It doesn't work on animals. Why do you think this is?

I think placebos won't work in animals because they do not have the ability to believe that a treatment will work or not work.

It's the human being's ability to believe that cause placebos to affect healing. The more deeply you believe - the more actual benefit you receive from a placebo. The less you believe the less benefit you receive. New MRI technology has been able to see physiological changes in people that benefit from their faith in the placebo.

This is why a positive attitude is so essential. A dog doesn't seem to have a positive or negative attitude that we can influence.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO
It's the human being's ability to believe that cause placebos to affect healing. The more deeply you believe - the more actual benefit you receive from a placebo. The less you believe the less benefit you receive.

Lightworker is down the hall, to the left. This is a skeptical forum. Or are you, at long last, de-cloaking?

[Kumar]

Quote:

Originally posted by Burrell
I simply wish to learn and to try and forward discussion.

YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO HALF PART OF THIS.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO HALF PART OF THIS.

There's no need for shouting, Kumar, and Burrell has done more than that. He has politely asked you for specifics. I've been even more specific about that question. To re-cap: has this vet published any peer-reviewed papers documenting any randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies wherein some remedy was statistically shown to cure pet diseases? If so, please provide citations, along with citations for the repeat studies, done by other vets or labs, that confirm this vet's findings?

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Lightworker is down the hall, to the left. This is a skeptical forum. Or are you, at long last, de-cloaking?

Is that your clever way of saying you don't believe me?

But I read it on the internet! It must be true....

[Kumar]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

To re-cap: has this vet published any peer-reviewed papers documenting any randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies wherein some remedy was statistically shown to cure pet diseases? If so, please provide citations, along with citations for the repeat studies, done by other vets or labs, that confirm this vet's findings?

BETTER YOU STUDY Veterinary homeopathy. EVERY SYSTEM MAY HAVE ITS OWN WAY OF JUSTIFICATION/TESTING(Ref: " Whether Forcasting Science" ). THEIR PROGRESSIVE ACCEPTANCE & USAGES IN ITSELF IS A BIG PROOF.

Somewhere Science is defined as: The study of the natural world through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanations.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO


Is that your clever way of saying you don't believe me?

But I read it on the internet! It must be true....

I see. You read that an MRI study was done that demonstrates the placebo effect in healing? Can you provide the citation, please?

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
BETTER YOU STUDY Veterinary homeopathy. EVERY SYSTEM MAY HAVE ITS OWN WAY OF JUSTIFICATION/TESTING. THEIR PROGRESSIVE ACCEPTANCE & USAGES IN ITSELF IS A BIG PROOF.

No, Kumar, I am not talking about "justification." And, no, Kumar, I am not talking about methods within a medical "system." I am talking about basic science, whose rules are the same throughout the universe. The rules we have been using for five centuries that help us discern truth from fiction about how the universe works. Your appeal to change the rules is denied as the fallacy of special pleading.

Now, do you have citations for us, as I described previously?

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I see. You read that an MRI study was done that demonstrates the placebo effect in healing? Can you provide the citation, please?

You can look it up yourself, I am quite busy at the moment and don't have time to poke around to find a study to back up my claim. It's not that there isn't good research to back it up, I just don't have time right now. You understand.

I am surprised that you haven't done any research into this before dismissing the idea. Of course, the discussion went in the direction of homeopathy and the author of the OP didn't present the topic in the best way. I have the feeling the language barrier played a part.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO


You can look it up yourself, I am quite busy at the moment and don't have time to poke around to find a study to back up my claim. It's not that there isn't good research to back it up, I just don't have time right now. You understand.

I am surprised that you haven't done any research into this before dismissing the idea. Of course, the discussion went in the direction of homeopathy and the author of the OP didn't present the topic in the best way. I have the feeling the language barrier played a part.

I know exactly the study you are speaking of, darling, and I was rather hoping you would go find it to find it is not what you claimed. Once again, though, you ejaculate a claim here and instantly back away when challenged. Once again, you attempt to pin the blame on others.

Now, for once in your pathetic life, go look it up. The MRI study has nothing to do with healing. You've superimposed indigochild, woo-woo reasoning on a pain amelioration study.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I know exactly the study you are speaking of, darling, and I was rather hoping you would go find it to find it is not what you claimed. Once again, though, you ejaculate a claim here and instantly back away when challenged. Once again, you attempt to pin the blame on others.

Now, for once in your pathetic life, go look it up. The MRI study has nothing to do with healing. You've superimposed indigochild, woo-woo reasoning on a pain amelioration study.

If I haven't cited my sources (plural) how can you know what sources I am referring to? Are you claiming to be psychic or did you leave words out like, "it seems," or "I think you mean," or "in all liklihood?"

I have to run, things to do, you know. For once I have a Sunday where my meds aren't giving me problems and I must take advantage of the day.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO


If I haven't cited my sources (plural) how can you know what sources I am referring to? Are you claiming to be psychic or did you leave words out like, "it seems," or "I think you mean," or "in all liklihood?"

I have to run, things to do, you know. For once I have a Sunday where my meds aren't giving me problems and I must take advantage of the day.

Citations, please, tamitroll. If you don't know the study, it is rather silly to post the claim on a public board. Especially a public skeptics board. If you have time to post -- three times now -- how I should look it up and how you don't have the time, yada yada yada, then you certainly have time to find the study.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You have to think of some of these characters as logical escape artists and be forthright and up front with what you really want to see.

So will you ever provide evidence for, or retract, your claim that skewness/skew is only called skew?

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Lightworker is down the hall, to the left. This is a skeptical forum. Or are you, at long last, de-cloaking?

"for skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe"

...

...

[BillHoyt]

Still waiting for those citations, tamitroll.

[BillHoyt]

tamitroll,

Any luck finding this magical, healing power of belief study? We're all ears and eyes.

[Burrell]

Just a quick point, behaviourist research carried out by Pavlov in the 1920's showed that animals can exhibit a positive and a negative emotional reaction to a stimulus.

In one case the stimulus was water.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Burrell
Just a quick point, behaviourist research carried out by Pavlov in the 1920's showed that animals can exhibit a positive and a negative emotional reaction to a stimulus.

In one case the stimulus was water.

The other aspect to pay attention to is the owner. We're often talking about conditions that, if medical, would require self-reporting. In veterinary practice, that becomes, of course, pet owner reporting about improvement or lack of improvement.

[Burrell]

Very true. There is also the fact that such third party observations are also subject to the question they have been asked.

An example of this is a 'rapid' improvement in the well being of the animal in question. As the owner is working / has put the animal in the care of others / can not be there to observe all the time, the 'rapid' improvement could have come over days and not been detected.

Yet when asked "Has there been a change?" the owner answers, quite correctly "Yes." Further questioning could then be along the lines of "When did you notice the improvement?" and the owner, quite truthfully can answer "Only today."

Both have told the truth yet neither is correctly recording what has happened.

This example is not designed to imply anything (in fact it comes from a training exercise in Call Centre Work) and simply is there to point out that, despite the questions being asked and the best intentions of all involved, errors can occur.

This sort of clerical error occurs in all walks of life, from the civil service to the private sector and is not restricted to those involved in any form of alternative treatments.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Would a homeopathetic vet ever accept a pet without an owner as a patient? I bet he would - he'd just take on the role of the owner himself and fall for his own placebo. That way, the homeopathetic vet can always claim "It works - it's not placebo: You see, I cured this stray dog myself, so the owner's reaction had nothing to do with it - there's no owner!"

[Burrell]

No, the vet has taken over the care of the animal, therefore becoming the 'owner' or 'keeper'.

A very interesting idea though.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by Burrell
No, the vet has taken over the care of the animal, therefore becoming the 'owner' or 'keeper'.

Actually, this is where the "double" in "double-blind" experiments comes in. It's reasonably well-established that patients who believe they are getting (effective) treatment will self-report improvements, which is why a placebo/control group is necessary. But it's also established that doctors who believe that a patient is getting treatment will report improvements. For this reason, a properly run medical study will not let the attending physicians know whether any particular patient is part of the experimental or control group -- not only does the patient not know whether or not (s)he's getting the real drug, but neither does the doctor. (Only the pharmacist knows who is actually getting drugs, and the pharmacist never sees the patient.)

A vet taking care of an ownerless pet is an example of why double-blinding is necessary. You could get a decent double-blinding going on by having a second vet prescribe either a homeopathic remedy or distilled water, and give the bottle to the attending vet without telling which. Of course, you'd need a lot of animals to do this properly, and I doubt that most vets who do homeopathy would be willing to cooperate.

[Rolfe]

It's well-recognised that whenever subjective reporting of the condition of a patient is required, animals will also appear to show the "placebo effect". In fact, it can be easier to elicit than with humans, because the person who is deciding whether or not the pet is better is not themself experiencing the illness.

And just as with humans, the more objective the recording of physiological changes, the less likely it is that observer bias will creep in.

I think an awful lot of what is described as "placebo" is actually wishful thinking, which is easier to apply to someone else's pain than your own, especially if the patient isn't in a position to contradict you.

I've mentioned before the canine arthritis study where the observers became accidentally unblinded as to who had got the snake oil and who the placebo. The more likely a group of observers was to have been unblinded, the more likely they seemed to be to report the treated group as less lame. However, objective force plate measurements of the amount of weight the dogs were putting on their lame legs showed absolutely no difference between the groups.

It's absolutely vital that anyone who is assessing the condition of patients in a study must not know who got what, whether the patients are human or animal. Think of it as observer bias and you'll see why.

Rolfe.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolfe:
I think an awful lot of what is described as "placebo" is actually wishful thinking...snip...

Good point. Seriously or terminally ill people clutching at straws will often express that they are responding well to treatment, even though both subjective and objective observation will reveal otherwise...

In the case of homeopathetics, observer bias is often mistaken for placebo, as you also point out, not least when the homeopathetics claim an effect and say "Oh yeah? Animals can't respond with placebo because they can't know". True - but the owner/and or the homeopathetic can.

I have't researched it as you obviously have, but I very much doubt that any properly blinded clinical trial has ever shown any effect of homeopathetic remedies on animals (or on humans, for that matter...)

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
I very much doubt that any properly blinded clinical trial has ever shown any effect of homeopathetic remedies on animals (or on humans, for that matter...)

There are only about four objective, controlled trials of homoeopathy in animals.

The 1989 Taylor et al. study (of a commercial nosode for lungworm infection, followed by experimental infection) wasn't blinded, but as the results were very objective and no difference was found between the groups of calves (both control and treated calves died like flies, basically), I would consider it a valid study.

de Verdier Klingenberg et al. actually found that the treated calves (naturally-occurring neonatal diarrhoea) took longer to recover from their illness than the treated group, though the difference was non-significant.

There is also a Canadian study of a dermatitis treatment which had one dog in each group improving significantly - i.e. as many placebo dogs got better as treated dogs!

And I was recently shown another study I haven't looked at in detail but which was apparently done by a veterinary alt-med advocate (Susan Wynn?), who has recently turned against homoeopathy specifically, after her study came up with a resounding zilch. She is still very much into alt-vet-med, she has to be as her entire career is founded on it, but away from the woo-woo brigade she now apparently admits that she no longer thinks there's anything to homoeopathy as such. (So some of them do have minds open enough to evidence to make the obvious conclusions!)

I can look for the references (links) to these tomorrow - it's past my bed-time now!

As for your afterthought comment, better be careful or we'll have to start refuting Kleijnen, Boissel, Linde and Reilly yet again, and I haven't finished my definitive spam-debunk post to kill every mention of these.

Rolfe.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolfe:
I think an awful lot of what is described as "placebo" is actually wishful thinking...snip...

I've been putting together some information about placebos and had some thoughts along the way.

Wishful thinking is not the same as believing. IMO, you have to firmly believe placebos will work for placebos to be most effective.

We know that stress worsens symptoms... a lack of stress should be more condusive to healing? What's the opposite of stress? Euphoria? Makes me wonder how much more effective a placebo would be if it was given to people who were euphoric.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt
tamitroll,

Any luck finding this magical, healing power of belief study? We're all ears and eyes.

Ears? Eyes? I thought you were a "member."
It's as if you hang on my every word.
I clearly control you.

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
I have't researched it as you obviously have, but I very much doubt that any properly blinded clinical trial has ever shown any effect of homeopathetic remedies on animals (or on humans, for that matter...)

There are. This one for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11068345

I'm yet to find one that isn't flawed in some way though (and with the number of studies that have been done I'm expecting to see one at some point due to shear chance).

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO


I've been putting together some information about placebos and had some thoughts along the way.

Wishful thinking is not the same as believing. IMO, you have to firmly believe placebos will work for placebos to be most effective.

We know that stress worsens symptoms... a lack of stress should be more condusive to healing? What's the opposite of stress? Euphoria? Makes me wonder how much more effective a placebo would be if it was given to people who were euphoric.

tamitroll,

Are we simply to be treated to a series of speculations and questions, bereft of evidence? The occasional claim of research without citation? How do these posts distinguish you from all the woos in wooville? They post exactly like this.

[Zep]

Kumar,

Where in Asean are you located? Name the city nearest you, please.

cheers
zep

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

tamitroll,

Are we simply to be treated to a series of speculations and questions, bereft of evidence? The occasional claim of research without citation? How do these posts distinguish you from all the woos in wooville? They post exactly like this.

I left clues like, "IMO" and "Makes me wonder," Your post is nothing more than a collection of questions asking me to verify your reading comprehension and your bigoted perspective.

Your suspiscions cast in the first two questions here were correct and show signs of your ability to comprehend at least some of what you read. My post does express my personal opinions and speculations as to the possibilities the research into my article suggests. It's normal people call friendly discussion.

The dismissive tone you use in the third question and following statement rely on your apparent bigotry and prejudice. You seem to be under some false impressions. If we were engaged in formal debate there might be some latin phrases I could be throwing around to dismiss your post, as well.

I don't want to dismiss your post;IMO, it's an important example of what happens when a person has such deeply engrained beliefs and those beliefs are challenged or threatened.

IOW&IMO, a meme you appear to host seems to be fighting for it's virtual life. You are reacting normally considering the context.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamiO


I left clues like, "IMO" and "Makes me wonder," Your post is nothing more than a collection of questions asking me to verify your reading comprehension and your bigoted perspective.

Your suspiscions cast in the first two questions here were correct and show signs of your ability to comprehend at least some of what you read. My post does express my personal opinions and speculations as to the possibilities the research into my article suggests. It's normal people call friendly discussion.

The dismissive tone you use in the third question and following statement rely on your apparent bigotry and prejudice. You seem to be under some false impressions. If we were engaged in formal debate there might be some latin phrases I could be throwing around to dismiss your post, as well.

I don't want to dismiss your post;IMO, it's an important example of what happens when a person has such deeply engrained beliefs and those beliefs are challenged or threatened.

IOW&IMO, a meme you appear to host seems to be fighting for it's virtual life. You are reacting normally considering the context.

Tamitroll,

Okay, you have no evidence to back up either your claim or your speculative questions. Quelle surprise!

[Anders W. Bonde]

Geni,

The little abstract in the link you kindly provided concerning the Indian clinical trial on mice does not mention the size of the test population. Do you know what it was? Also, has anyone been able to replicate the experiment? If the answer to question 1 is "more than adequate for statistical significance" and the answer to question 2 is "yes (by so-and-so and so-and-so)" I would assume that the World of Homeopathetics would claim this test to be The Non Plus Ultra proof og homepathy - and that the rest of us should definitely encourage more research on h'pathy.

Why does this not appear to be the case?

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
The little abstract in the link you kindly provided concerning the Indian clinical trial on mice does not mention the size of the test population.

If this is the one I think it is, I think the answer is about 4.

Rolfe.

[tamiO]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Tamitroll,

Okay, you have no evidence to back up either your claim or your speculative questions. Quelle surprise!

It's called adding to the conversation, Bill. It's a social skill. Go find someone who is making some actual claims and has time to sit around on forums all day ready to produce evidence at the snap of your mighty hardcore skeptic fingers. Someone you can control.

I hereby place you under my most powerful lightworker woowoo spell. You will be compelled to reply to every post I make on JREF. I control you.

Go ahead, try to control yourself. You can't.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Rolfe,

If the test population really only was 4, the study should not have passed a peer review, IMHO, let alone have been published.

I rest my case.

(edited for typo)

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Rolfe,

If the test population really only was 4, the study should not have passed a peer review, IMHO, let alone have been published.

I rest my case.

(edited for typo)

I'm not sure I'm thinking of the same paper, but there was a horribly long one on mice we tore to shreds in an earlier thread and one of the points was that n=4 or something like that.

But Geni may have a better handle on this than I have, I'll defer to his information. It may not be the same paper.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by tamitroll
It's the human being's ability to believe that cause placebos to affect healing. The more deeply you believe - the more actual benefit you receive from a placebo. The less you believe the less benefit you receive.

[Kumar]

Placebo effect & Cephalic phase(sensation effects) effect are both related to to brain/sense. What do you say-- whether hormones are triggered first & then the secondary body secretions eg. stomach acid by these effects & direct body juices are secreted first & then the hormones in other cases?