Placebo effect
Dave Smith
effect:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article6877064.ece
Peter Brooks
> An article about the physiological processes underlying the placebo
> effect:
>
>
Interesting, and good research. Not altogether a surprise. Placebo
treatments don't work on animals.
It's a little odd, really, that animal welfare organisations don't
condemn the cruelty inherent in 'treating' animals with homeopathy and
similar placebo-only substances. I suppose they prefer prosecuting
yobs for dog-fighting than space cadets as their actual aim isn't
relieving animal cruelty, but, rather, demonstrating their own
imagined moral superiority.
Dave Smith
Given that some vets try homeopathic treatments on their patients,
double-blind controlled trials are
required to evaluate the outcomes. Results should be relevant to
people as well as other animals.
Dave Smith
Lance
> On Oct 16, 9:55 am, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:> An article about the physiological processes underlying the placebo
>
> It's a little odd, really, that animal welfare organisations don't
> condemn the cruelty inherent in 'treating' animals with homeopathy and
> similar placebo-only substances. I suppose they prefer prosecuting
> yobs for dog-fighting than space cadets as their actual aim isn't
> relieving animal cruelty, but, rather, demonstrating their own
> imagined moral superiority.
The person who gives homeopathic medicine to his pet believes he is
helping the pet. The person who makes dogs fight enjoys seeing the
animals tear each other apart. The person who deliberately hurts his
pet enjoys the pain he is causing. I think the first is clearly
different from the other cases since they differ in intention.
Lance
Peter Brooks
do good, then whatever evil you do is OK because of your intention?
Pol Pot was keen to alleviate the suffering of the poor in cities, so
he abolished cities. The suffering was there, his intention was pure,
does that absolve him from any guilt associated with the suffering in
Cambodia that led to the pyramids of skulls?
More directly, if somebody intelligent enough to understand that
homeopathy is a load of arse, deliberately convinces himself that he
is, as you say, intending to do his pet good, then is the suffering of
the animal irrelevant?
I don't think that evil people see themselves as evil, mostly they
argue for good intentions, including those who are mainly identified
as monsters. Does this make it OK? If not, then why is it OK for
people with 'good intentions' to torture their pets and not for those
with bad ones? Do dogs, who, it appears, like fighting (like humans)
suffer more when made to fight for the pleasure of the dog-fighters,
than sick animals who are rendered no assistance by their stupid, or
misguided owners?
Is the suffering actually irrelevant, but only the intention of those
who cause it?
Dave Smith
According to one online dictionary, 'cruel' can mean either
"deliberately and remorselessly causing pain or anguish" or "bringing
about pain and distress". Homeopathic medicine perhaps indirectly
brings about pain or distress, but I don't think it is used in order
to cause pain or distress.
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
sophistical.
Surely, if we're honest, the issue with cruelty isn't the state of
mind of the person being cruel, but, rather, the suffering of the
person, or animal to whom the cruelty is inflicted.
If this were not so, then there would be something wrong with
consensual sado-masochism. It isn't my cup of tea, but that is, I
think by the way, and I can't see anything wrong with somebody feeling
gratification from a sadistic act if he, or she, knows that the act is
not actually cruel (in that it causes no genuine suffering), but play-
acting, where the 'victim' consents, and, actually, enjoys the feeling
of being helpless and 'tortured'. If it were only a matter of
intention, then such things would be just as wrong as actual cruel
violence.
I'm reminded of the excellent joke of the sadist and the masochist:
Masochist: 'Beat me, beat me, please beat me'
Sadist: 'No'
This, I think, encapsulates the dilemma.
I don't think it is true to say that somebody who, in ignorance,
purchases an animal, and then feeds it food that causes it suffering
and, then later, death, is not being cruel. Clearly they are being
cruel. If prosecuted, then they ought to be convicted of cruelty -
their ignorance could, certainly, I'd agree, be used as argument for
mitigation of sentence, but not, I feel as an argument for their not
having been cruel in fact. I'd, myself, think that their intention to
own an animal, accompanied by their negligent refusal to learn
properly to care for it is the cruelty. They've avoided their duty of
care to the animal, which duty includes making yourself aware, as far
as you can, of the actual needs of the animal.
There's an interesting argument that follows from this about zoos. If
lions, for example, are not happy if not allowed to kill their prey
(I'm not saying this is the case in fact, but suggesting it for the
thought experiment) then it would be wrong not to allow them to do
this. If this killing involves the slow and painful death of their
prey, then a zoo keeper with a conscience could not keep lions because
their needs would force him to keep other animals who he'd condemn to
a cruel death, or to keep the lions cruelly apart from what makes them
happy.
Lance
What a load of horse shit.
Even Piaget's 4-year-old's know that intention makes a big difference
when we morally evaluate actions. The same goes for our actions with
respect to animals.
If some woman loves you and you don;t love her, and say the
relationship is over, you cause her pain. Should her pain influence
your choice of a life partner?
It is easy to make examples. People who fed their beloved animals pet
food tainted with melamine - they caused pain and suffering but they
didn't intend to do and are not morally evaluated as being cruel.
You seem to think because it is obvious to you that homeopathy is bunk
that it must be obvious to everyone. But perhaps there are blind spots
in your beliefs too. We all have our blind spots and prejudices which
guide our actions. To assume that someone who believes in homeopathy
and treats their animals using it must be cruel is to open yourself to
similar blame when your own prejudices and weaknesses of judgement
lead you to make mistakes and to cause suffering.
Lance
Lance
As far as I am concerned the above puts you right in the disgruntled
from Tunbridge Wells brigade. You are too swollen with your self-
righteousness to think rationally.
Lance
Peter Brooks
> >
> As far as I am concerned the above puts you right in the disgruntled
> from Tunbridge Wells brigade. You are too swollen with your self-
> righteousness to think rationally.
>
you're so anti this.
I'm not sure about the self-righteousness. I'm not against zoos
myself, and would reject the lion argument as taking things too far
anyway because there are other reasons to consider them cruel.
I agree completely that I, or anybody else, could be judged by the
same token. Being honestly mistaken, after making appropriately
diligent investigation, does exonerate you from actions that hurt
others. I don't disagree.
However, being dishonestly mistaken, or negligently failing to
investigate the matter at all, does make you guilty.
Consider another case, since I suspect you hold sympathy for dupes of
homeopathy for some reason, that of the thalidomide scandal. I don't
think anybody would wish to argue that cruelty wasn't visited upon
those children. It was not a natural disaster, but a man-made one. The
mothers of the children and their doctors, though, were not guilty of
cruelty. They acted completely innocently and, given the level of
knowledge at the time, could not have known, even with the most
diligent investigation, that they were going to cause such enormous
cruelty. The manufacturers, however, who were aware of the teratogenic
nature of the compound, were indeed guilty of the cruelty.
These days, partly of course because of the thalidomide scandal,
mothers who took a teratogenic drug in the first trimester of
pregnancy, or, if not them certainly their doctors, would be guilty of
cruelty because the information is now widely available, at least in
the first world.
Are you happier that that's a less Tunbridge Wellean view? If not,
then I think you need to explain your point further.
Also, by the way, on a deeper moral point, if I were to hold another
guilty party innocent of their crime and indemnify them of
responsibility, only because I myself might, some day, commit the same
crime myself, I'd think that I was being self-serving and immoral
myself. Don't you?
Lance
There is a difference between the responsibility of a researcher (for
example a pharmaceutical research company) and that of a doctor/vet,
and that of someone who basically seeks the advice of experts or the
media (like a dog owner with a sick pet). In the UK I think highly
responsible people (like Prince Charles?) advocate homeopathy, so I
hardly think a pet owner who says "I felt better taking some
homeopathic remedy and the newspapers tell me how poisonous ordinary
medicines are so I'll try to get my dog fixed using homeopathy, after
all Prince Charles uses it too" is in anything like the same league as
someone who says "My pet is sick, I'll let the disease take its
course" or at the other extreme some one who likes to tie his dog
behind his car and drag the dog for several miles over rough gravel.
The latter two guys need far more attention from prosecutors than
first guy, mistaken though he may be.
No ordinary consumer can be assigned the responsibility of a full
blown medical researcher. After all in this world, most of us could
not possibly be expert in more than one area of science let alone
every area which your Tunbrigean Wellsian view would hold. Someone
talked of randomised trials. Well, ethical research into whether
patients in Africa really understand what a randomised trial is shows
that the concept is extremely hard for ordinary people to understand.
But clearly we all can understand the deliberate infliction of cruelty
on animals...
Lance
Peter Brooks
There are, indeed, different levels of cruelty as well.
>
> No ordinary consumer can be assigned the responsibility of a full
> blown medical researcher. After all in this world, most of us could
> not possibly be expert in more than one area of science let alone
> every area which your Tunbrigean Wellsian view would hold. Someone
> talked of randomised trials. Well, ethical research into whether
> patients in Africa really understand what a randomised trial is shows
> that the concept is extremely hard for ordinary people to understand.
> But clearly we all can understand the deliberate infliction of cruelty
> on animals...
>
I think we're in agreement, actually. There are two matters, the fact
of cruelty, and the responsibility for it. Confusing the two was, I
think, the original problem.
Ian Smith
> On Oct 16, 9:55 am, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> An article about the physiological processes underlying the placebo
>> effect:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article6877064...
>>
> Interesting, and good research. Not altogether a surprise. Placebo
> treatments don't work on animals.
There was a study a few years ago (with homoeopathic remedies and
horses - I can't provide a reference I'm afraid) which appeared to
show that they do. The explanation was that the patients were
getting TLC and benefited in the same way as humans.
regards, Ian
Peter Brooks
wrote:
for any effects.
Ian Smith
> On Oct 18, 11:51 am, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com>
> wrote:
>> Peter Brooks wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 9:55 am, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> An article about the physiological processes underlying the placebo
>>>> effect:
>>> Interesting, and good research. Not altogether a surprise. Placebo
>>> treatments don't work on animals.
>> There was a study a few years ago (with homoeopathic remedies and
>> horses - I can't provide a reference I'm afraid) which appeared to
>> show that they do. The explanation was that the patients were
>> getting TLC and benefited in the same way as humans.
>>
> Yes, as far as I can see it's observer bias or attention that accounts
> for any effects.
>
... where homoeopathic = placebo
regards, Ian
Citizen Jimserac
>
> As far as I am concerned the above puts you right in the disgruntled
> from Tunbridge Wells brigade. You are too swollen with your self-
> righteousness to think rationally.
>
> Lance
An opinion with which I fully agree.
Your comments vis a vis "intentionality" were spot on.
Brooks' thinking processes apparently shut off at the mere mention of
the word "Homeopathy".
He has not figured out and is unable to acknowledge that his 1930's
mental ball and stick models of molecules
is not sufficient basis for his unreasoning criticisms of anyone who
dares mention the word "Homeopathy".
I also note the persistent manner in which he attempts to portray
ANYONE who espouses support for Homeopathy or uses it as "dupes" or
other pejorative terms, which fully exempts him from any sort of
rational discussion on this topic. That someone might be very happy
to be "duped" into a full remission of a serious cancer is lost on
him. That perfectly capable MD's and other well trained health
professionals have been using Homeopathy for several centuries now,
and that patients, babies and animals have been successfully treated
with this system of medicine, is all lost on the hysterical and a
priori contemptuous dismissal of it by Brooks and others who unthink
as he does.
That cows, horses and cats and dogs have benefited or been cured of
illnesses, which therefore cannot possibly involve the "placebo"
mechanism (except for one clever cat that had done some reading and
thought to itself, "aha, thank goodness, they're giving me a
Homeopathic remedy, now I'll get better, I wonder if this is placebo
effect?)
For those who care to do some reading and thinking, after tiring of
Brooks' cackling like a chicken,
the books, research reports, clinical evidence and case histories are
out there waiting to be read.
LEARN!
Here is a comment on one favorite objection of the skeptics to the
scientific possibility of Homeopathy written by Dr. Brian Josephson,
Nobel prize winning scientist:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/ns/homeopathy.html
Citizen Jimserac
Lance
I think you didn't read the rest of the messages.
Lance
Citizen Jimserac
> On Oct 30, 6:57 pm, Citizen Jimserac <jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 6:42 pm, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As far as I am concerned the above puts you right in the disgruntled
> > > from Tunbridge Wells brigade. You are too swollen with your self-
> > > righteousness to think rationally.
>
> > > Lance
>
> > An opinion with which I fully agree.
>
> > Your comments vis a vis "intentionality" were spot on.
>
> >Brooks' thinking processes apparently shut off at the mere mention of
> > the word "Homeopathy".
>
> > He has not figured out and is unable to acknowledge that his 1930's
> > mental ball and stick models of molecules
> > is not sufficient basis for his unreasoning criticisms of anyone who
> > dares mention the word "Homeopathy".
>
> > I also note the persistent manner in which he attempts to portray
> > other pejorative terms, which fully exempts him from any sort of
> > rational discussion on this topic. That someone might be very happy
> > to be "duped" into a full remission of a serious cancer is lost on
> > him. That perfectly capable MD's and other well trained health
> > and that patients, babies and animals have been successfully treated
> > with this system of medicine, is all lost on the hysterical and a
> > as he does.
>
> > That cows, horses and cats and dogs have benefited or been cured of
> > illnesses, which therefore cannot possibly involve the "placebo"
> > mechanism (except for one clever cat that had done some reading and
> > thought to itself, "aha, thank goodness, they're giving me a
> > Homeopathic remedy, now I'll get better, I wonder if this is placebo
> > effect?)
>
> > For those who care to do some reading and thinking, after tiring of
> >Brooks' cackling like a chicken,
> > the books, research reports, clinical evidence and case histories are
> > out there waiting to be read.
> > LEARN!
>
> > Here is a comment on one favorite objection of the skeptics to the
> > Nobel prize winning scientist:http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/ns/homeopathy.html
>
> > Citizen Jimserac
>
> I think you didn't read the rest of the messages.
>
> Lance
I did, including the article purporting to explain "placebo effect
which initiated the thread".
I reject any attempt immediately, to assume as its premise that
Homeopathy is impossible which then switches to "placebo effect" as a
rationalization to explain the obvious curative effects.
Ian Smith summed up this succinctly by saying Homeopathy = placebo
effect.
In order to properly examine this issue, the other side of the fence
must be crossed.
Look up Dr. David Taylor Reilly, a Glasgow MD who has investigated and
written on the subject.
Interestingly, he started out as a complete skeptic, as did we all,
investigated and later became a proponent and user of Homeopathy and
is now connected with Glasgow Homeopathic hospital.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11
My area of interest is Chinese medicine and Herbology, I'm not a
Homeopath (yet) but am considering a formal study after I'm done
traveling in China.
Citizen Jimserac
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
We discussed homeopathy at some length a while ago, so I don't want to
go over the same ground again. However, the obvious requirements to
establish its validity are a) to offer a credible explanation of how
it works, and b) to demonstrate its effectiveness with properly
designed controlled trials. Until these steps have been taken, I
think scepticism is justified.
Dave Smith
graham
"Dave Smith" <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
We discussed homeopathy at some length a while ago, so I don't want to
go over the same ground again. However, the obvious requirements to
establish its validity are a) to offer a credible explanation of how
it works, and b) to demonstrate its effectiveness with properly
designed controlled trials. Until these steps have been taken, I
think scepticism is justified.
Dave Smith
----------------------------------------------------------
I take it that you have seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
Graham
Dave Smith
Very amusing, thanks -- Dave Smith
Citizen Jimserac
Almost as hilarious as some of the arguments against Homeopathy seen
in this group.
Cit J.
graham
"Citizen Jimserac" <jims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b50b470a-55d5-4929...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
____________________________________________________________
Presumably you take this one seriously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
She calls herself "Dr" but she must have got it by mail order or by sending
in box tops.
BTW, I take it that you will not be getting any inoculations against any
tropical diseases before you travel and will rely on your little bottles of
distilled water to prevent malaria.
Graham
Citizen Jimserac
Quite the contrary, there are GENERATIONS of animal lovers, horse
owners, owners of dogs, cats,
and other animals who swear by Homeopathy and who have used it, or
their vets have used, quite successfully.
In addition, you really should include a disclaimer in your assertions
that Homeopathy is mere placbeo. You have no evidence to back this up
other than some rather shoddy articles published in a few journals
such as the flawed Shang article which was advertised as basing its
conclusions on a meta analysis of 110 trials when in fact, after
various questionable exclusionary criteria were applied, their
sweeping conclusion was based on a grand total of 8 (eight!!) trials.
Your assertions about Homeopathy are mere opinion, no better nor worse
than anyone else's opinion, and to make the pretension that your
sweepingly incorrect generalizations about Homeopathy constitute
anything more than mere opinion is, in and of itself, anti-scientific.
Why don't you just go on the record right now that your opinions are
based on hearsay, innuendo, perhaps some rubbish that appeared in the
"Guardian", improper drawing of conclusions from insufficient number
of tests and research, and - last but most certainly not least, a
boldfaced attempt to pretend that very satisfied users of Homeopathy
do not exist and have not existed for the last 2 centuries.
A quick trip to any search engine or a library promptly dispels such
illusions as you persist in repeating, about Homeopathy being a
placebo.
In fact, the attempted placebo argument used against several
alternative medical systems is nothing more than an acknowledgement of
their obvious curative effect combined with an immediate attempt to
deny the significance of those cures or improvements due to the
Homeopathy.
On the issue of animal treatments, the cure or improvement in animals
for some conditions is so obvious a refutation of the flawed
"placebo" argument that it is amazing there are people who persist in
offering it, seriously, as an argument.
Citizen Jimserac (James Pannozzi)
(Comment from Harry Horse: "My master gave me Homeopathy and I did
get quite better after taking it but since I haven't read any books,
don't know what Homeopathy is, and don't get on the Internet too often
and usually spend most of my time in the pasture, I can assure
everyone it was not placebo effect". - Testimony from "Harry the
Horse" 3d barnyard to the right of the old farmhouse in Surrey.)
Dave Smith
Animals may respond to TLC and often may recover from illnesses
without medical intervention. Properly conducted trials are required
to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
Dave Smith
Citizen Jimserac
Let me modify that assertion - Properly conducted trials (and the
"proper" part has not yet been determined with exactitude) may be
USEFUL in validating the efficacy of Homeopathic treatments.
I say this because "properly conducted" trials most certainly have NOT
been implemented for all the procedures and treatments of standard
allopathic medicine. Treatments and procedures which are done every
day by the thousands. And so who "approves" these treatments? The
Doctors and surgeons and other health professional experts in those
fields, of course. It is the same with Homeopathy, as it should be.
Citizen Jimserac
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
As, I believe, Hume argued, before accepting the veracity of a
miracle, one should be able to discount alternative, less improbable
explanations.
Dave Smith
Citizen Jimserac
> On 7 Dec, 01:50, CitizenJimserac<jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:44 pm, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As, I believe, Hume argued, before accepting the veracity of a
> miracle, one should be able to discount alternative, less improbable
> explanations.
>
> Dave Smith
Indeed so - but first, be rather circumspect in declaring exactly what
is a miracle.
Citizen Jimserac (and Harry!)