Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What caused the symptom relief in the people who were given a placebo, remember they were given no active drug? It was the belief that they were taking something that would make them feel better, that caused them to feel better. The belief alone activated their bodies natural pain killers. We understand how that works. If you want to know more, study psychoneuroimmunology.
Since, the people given X reported that they received the same level of symptom relief as those given placebo, we can't rule out that their improvement too was due to belief. We can't say that the drug itself actually does anything to physically reduce symptoms above and beyond what pure belief that one is doing something that will help causes.
Note this for your edification, Nozz . . . dogs don't believe jacksh*t . . . get it? And they are not psychic and can't know vicariously through their owners. Get a clue!
But saying that a phenomenon that is known to exist in humans because of our unique cognitive ability (placebo effect) exists in animals that do NOT have that cognitive ability is bogus science.
Straw man again because this is not what I am saying, nor does saying "Get a clue" substantiate the nonsense you espouse.
The "placebo effect" - the effect of making someone look, act or even feel better without actually doing anything that affects the disease/condition - is very much observable in animals... I have cited many links and studies that shows this... and I have been responded to with nothing more than insult, opinion and straw man as is your usual forte.
I look forward to you actually citing something to back up your opinion however, rather than just reiterating it long enough to make people get bored and wander off.
Note this for your edification, Nozz . . . dogs don't believe jacksh*t . . . get it? And they are not psychic and can't know vicariously through their owners. Get a clue!
Merry Christmas Mystic!
Any dog owner will tell you that their dog is indeed psychic (as psychic as any very observant creature), and do know things vicariously through their owners.
I believe a large effect of acupuncture is working on the mind (that it effects how we feel about our health), but I do not accept the mind-body dualism or naturalism of western society anymore. Indeed, in Chinese medicine the organs of the body all have physical and mental symptoms that can be produced when diseased, and excessive mental states contribute to disease, so it stands to reason our feelings are interacting with our physiology.
The National Council Against Health Fraud asserts that acupuncture is scientifically unproven as a modality of treatment. The NCAHF says (as of 1990) that research during the past twenty years has failed to demonstrate that acupuncture is effective against any disease. Perceived effects of acupuncture are, argues the NCAHF, probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion and other psychological mechanisms.
NCAHF has very close ties with the AMA. I'm not so naive to think that the orthodox medical establishment in the US doesn't leverage their muscle in place of objective concern.
Alot of acupuncture is done by Chiropractors in the US, not Doctors of Chinese/Oriental Medicine, too. The DOM will most likely use an entirely different system to diagnose your problems, and potentially different needle placement and treatment methods. I went to two different DOM's and both did very similar treatments. And it took several sessions for me to see improvement in some of my symptoms (esp. the more physical ones), though anxiety and depression responded immediately.
Declaring this allows you then to do what people in all areas of quack medicine do from acupuncture to homeopathy.... disregard the negative research and use only the positive. If you get a positive result - yay you were right all along. If you get negative results - oh well the people doing it must just have been doing it wrong..
Go read some Linda McTaggart, spend some time as a chronicly ill person, and it will become obvious to you that orthodox medicine has its own untested, unproven woo that hasn't been rigorously subject to evidence-based medicine, especially regarding quality of life issues.
The "placebo effect" - the effect of making someone look, act or even feel better without actually doing anything that affects the disease/condition - is very much observable in animals...
THAT is NOT the placebo effect . . . you can call it the "nurture effect" or any other horsesh*t label you like. The placebo effect works because the patient THINKS they are getting an effective treatment. Animals do no such thing!!!
Go read some Linda McTaggart, spend some time as a chronicly ill person, and it will become obvious to you that orthodox medicine has its own untested, unproven woo that hasn't been rigorously subject to evidence-based medicine, especially regarding quality of life issues.
I have no idea what you mean to be honest but if your claim is simply that mainstream medicine has some options available within it that are untested or unproven then you will get no argument from me at all. The process by which medicine gets approved is not perfect yet though many of us are working on it. I would advise reading Ben Goldacre who is a champion of attempting to overhaul and improve the process by which medicine is tested and selected.
However doubts about some mainstream medicines does not in any way substantiate or lend credence to the claims of woo medicine. Just because some of one group is in doubt this does not mean any of another group becomes credible. They are two entirely different subjects and your doubts about one do not reflect at all on the discussion we are having about another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
THAT is NOT the placebo effect . . . you can call it the "nurture effect" or any other horsesh*t label you like. The placebo effect works because the patient THINKS they are getting an effective treatment. Animals do no such thing!!!
Congratulations on getting through an entire post without resorting to insult or ad hominem. I hope we can continue in this vein. It is certainly heartening progress from you.
However I do not know where you are getting your definition of placebo here. It certainly does not match any I have read. For example Moerman DE, Jonas WB (2002). "Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response" (Ann Intern Med. 136 (6): 471–6. PMID 11900500) defines it as "a substance or procedure… that is objectively without specific activity for the condition being treated". Nothing to do with what the patient thinks.
Often the effects of placebo have been explained by the patient being cared for by an authority and such attentions make them feel better. There is no reason to think this is not also true in animals as they too benefit from our attentions and administrations as was already shown in the citations I made.... since only one of us appears to be able to make citations.
One also has to account for observational bias too. The placebo effect does not just have to work on the animal. It can also work on the owner. If you as the owner expects strongly enough that the animal will feel or act better after a treatment then your observational bias will likely confirm it for you by thinking it is true. Do absolutely nothing to an animal but pretend you have and the owner will likely come out with "Oh he looks happier already, thank you doctor!!!".
The other citations I gave (which you refuse to do I repeat) show that conditioned responses can be created in animals too. Read the very interesting one on mice and saccharine for example. If a vet actually does help an animal feel better with actual medicine enough times then the animal is going to become conditions to feel better upon visiting medical practitioners.
So sorry but again I have to point out that thus far I have backed up my side of things with arguments and citation. You have backed up yours with opinion, anger and insult. Generally the latter is less convincing than the former.
THAT is NOT the placebo effect . . . you can call it the "nurture effect" or any other horsesh*t label you like. The placebo effect works because the patient THINKS they are getting an effective treatment. Animals do no such thing!!!
Whoa there Mystic...You need to lighten up a bit...Getting all wound up like this over text on a forum is not good for your health.
However doubts about some mainstream medicines does not in any way substantiate or lend credence to the claims of woo medicine. Just because some of one group is in doubt this does not mean any of another group becomes credible. They are two entirely different subjects and your doubts about one do not reflect at all on the discussion we are having about another. .
Of course you are right.
TCM is 3000 years of practice. To me that's credible enough. If it did nothing people would simply not use it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
