Do atheists really exist?

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Ah, I know.
Just concerned the thread was turning into a point & mock!

*points* Haha! You're concerned for the feelings of others!!

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

Well, the "expert" in crystals chooses the correct type for healing and uses that. The placebo control group are only treated using simple coloured glass used by a normal un-psychic/untrained person.

C'est facile.

Ah. Well, you understand that I am not arguing for Crystal Healing as it may be done by certain people, or for any particular theory expounded by soi-disant crystal healers. I am arguing for the idea that crystals, or things that might look like crystals, can be used to effect real physical and therapeutic benefit.

Zillah wrote: »

So you can in fact not make a good argument for the healing effect of crystals, merely that you can demonstrate the placebo effect using crystals. I could do the same using sugar pills, I don't expect people to think thats anything special and nor should you.

Ah, no. There is a crucial difference.

Let me put it this way: I think the skeptical community has hugely missed the point about the placebo effect. Rather than using it as a silver bullet to debunk every New Age treatment out there (though, of course these treatments must be tested, and placebo experiments are invariably elucidating), I think its inherent value merits investigation and development. Just as every successful placebo test demonstrates the non-agency of a treatment, it demonstrates that the human body can be stimulated to heal by sensory input alone. Rather than simply using this as a control, there is no reason why it cannot be exploited in its own right. There is also no reason why this effect should depend on deception or illusion, but could be stimulated by manipulating of mood and emotion. In other words - ritual.

Crystals are pretty, compelling and oddly evocative. They have an air of mystery and mysticism, which, it seems, is not rooted simply in acquired association. There is a reason why they have always been associated with magic and numinous effect - there is some intuitive suggestion of the otherworldly about them that is perceived by many. This makes them an ideal candidate as a prop - to be as unromantic about it as possible - in the engendering of states of mind, which - I hope you won't have a great deal of difficulty in accepting - may very well be conducive to healing. So, unlike sugar pills, which pretend to contain complicated chemicals, crystals simply are what they are - even if they are not what they are, and are simply coloured glass. I could equally well make this argument for religious relics - but crystals excel in being free from the requirement of affiliation to any religious identity.

To clarify - I do not intend to argue that crystals possess any objective healing quality. I am arguing that crystals can be part of any number of genuinely effective healing processes; that they are, for a number of reasons, especially apt for these processes. My real contention is that people possess a neglected ability to heal themselves that is far beyond anything currently utilised by medicine, and that that this ability can be stimulated by ritual. Ritual can come in countless many forms, but crystals, with all their hokey appeal and cheap impact, represent an easy shortcut to the kind of aesthetic input required.

I also believe that ritual is a great uncredited agent in many mainstream medical treatments. I would like to see reverse placebo experiments done, whereby the ritual element of medical and surgical intervention is concealed or minimised. GP consultations done via text interface, or secret surgeries. Ethical concerns aside (and the complete absence of motivation amongst those in a position to carry out the experiments), I am quite confident that disparities would be found.

bogwalrus

Zillah wrote: »

I'd also very much not expect people to think sugar pills had any sort of medicinal power.

Strangely enough i had an experience a year ago where i had this horrible cough and went to one of those homeopothy people who gave me these kind of sugar tablets and the cough was gone in a day. i had previously been on all sorts of medication and cause i was asthmatic the cough was quite bad and entered my lungs etc. i believe there is something more than placebo acting in certain sciences that cannot "yet" be explained through current types of experimenting.
i notice zillah that you have definitely made your mind up that all can be explained through determinism and logical physical anaylsis but it does seem that science is opening doors into all sorts of realms via the results from quantum experiments and the whole observer observed analyses.

You should know that until a theory can be scientifically proven to be false or true it remains where it is. You can argue all you want about these holistic medicines and methods of healing but when it comes down to it the science is just not there to support or falsify.

pH

To clarify - I do not intend to argue that crystals possess any objective healing quality. I am arguing that crystals can be part of any number of genuinely effective healing processes; that they are, for a number of reasons, especially apt for these processes. My real contention is that people possess a neglected ability to heal themselves that is far beyond anything currently utilised by medicine, and that that this ability can be stimulated by ritual. Ritual can come in countless many forms, but crystals, with all their hokey appeal and cheap impact, represent an easy shortcut to the kind of aesthetic input required.

Is this were true, seeing as humans have had access to placebo inducing rituals for thousands of years then modern medicine would have made very little impact in the treatment of disease, being far behind (as you put it) the body's ability to heal itself.

It's easy for you to sit there (presumably) in first world Ireland and prattle on about the healing power of crystals, because when you need medical attention you will receive some of the best medical care available on the planet. Let me tell you there are still today millions of people without access to proper medicine (who do have access to all forms of ineffective sham healing) and the difference in the quality of life and life expectancy are huge.

Now I know that maybe you might have heard auntie Nora's migraine has gotten a lot better since she started sleeping with a healing crystal under her pillow, but for millions of people facing typhoid, dysentery, polio, measles, malaria, river blindness and HIV (to name but a few) who don't have access to proper proven medical treatment all the crystals and placebo rituals in the world won't make a jot of difference. Despite your claims to the contrary, the body just doesn't have any effective hidden healing processes (except known properties of say the immune system).

If the body really did have these amazing self healing powers triggered by rituals, then everyone in the world would pretty much have good health and the ability to fight disease. The medicine we have here in the first world would be just the icing on the cake, a few percentage points better off for all the billions we spend on this. But this is not the case, humans without our medicine face appalling debilitating diseases in their millions, and all the sham rituals do nothing to help.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if there were posts you could report for sheer awesomeness, that'd be one of them

Zillah

bogwalrus wrote: »

Strangely enough i had an experience a year ago where i had this horrible cough and went to one of those homeopothy people who gave me these kind of sugar tablets and the cough was gone in a day. i had previously been on all sorts of medication and cause i was asthmatic the cough was quite bad and entered my lungs etc.

We have no way of knowing that your illness wasn't going to go away in a day regardless of whether you ate some sugar tablets or not.

i believe there is something more than placebo acting in certain sciences that cannot "yet" be explained through current types of experimenting.

There is one kind of science. Homeopathy is not a science. It likes to pretend it is, but its not. What convinces you there is anything more than the placebo effect to homeopathy?

i notice zillah that you have definitely made your mind up that all can be explained through determinism and logical physical anaylsis but it does seem that science is opening doors into all sorts of realms via the results from quantum experiments and the whole observer observed analyses.

While quantum mechanics might seem very strange to people who don't really understand it, it is not an excuse to assume the universe is actually some sort of magical place where all sorts of unexplainable things happen.

Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Unless we're discussing subatomic particles then referencing Quantum Mechanics is meaningless. Quantum Theory has to be the next most abused and misunderstood field of understanding in Science second only to evolution.

You should know that until a theory can be scientifically proven to be false or true it remains where it is. You can argue all you want about these holistic medicines and methods of healing but when it comes down to it the science is just not there to support or falsify.

Uh actually the evidence does exist. Every competantly run scientific study on homeopathy has proven it doesn't do anything beyond the placebo effect. Its nonesense, and its a bit sad you've fallen for it.

As for the way science works, you're not quite getting it.

Step 1 - Someone comes up with an idea on how things work (hypothesis).
Step 2 - They gather research, conduct experiments and compare evidence (experimentation + peer review).
Step 3 - If the hypothesis passes stage two it becomes a theory, which essentially means its a proposal that we're very sure is probably correct.

Until something reaches step 3 we have to assume its not correct, otherwise we'd never get anything done.

For example, lets look at the discovery of antibiotics:
Step 1 - Someone realises that penicillin has killed a load of bacteria. He has the idea that maybe this stuff could be used to cure diseases.
Step 2 - He tests it and it works, it is shown to be drastically more effective than anything before it, including the placebo effect.
Step 3 - One of the pillars of modern medicine is established.

The thing is, that with homeopathy/reflexology/crystals/whatever, they almost never bother going beyong Step 1. They just come up with a idea, play around and insist its true and that it deserves a place up there on the shelf where all the theories that reached Step 3 are. Any time that something like homeopathy has gone to Step 2 they've been crushed. Shown conclusively to be nothing more than placebos. The evidence is out in plain site for you online, there's no conspiracy, homeopathy is crap, do some reading. For example, James Randi ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills and it did nothing to him. He ate 64 times the reccomended dosage, or some absurd quantity like that.

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Rather than simply using this as a control, there is no reason why it cannot be exploited in its own right.

You do realise that conventional treatments that actually involve medicine or surgery invoke a placebo effect as well as their direct impact? So surely our efforts should be in maximising the reassuring qualities of real medicine rather than defending crystal waving silliness that can achieve nothing but the indirect benefits of a placebo?

So, unlike sugar pills, which pretend to contain complicated chemicals, crystals simply are what they are - even if they are not what they are, and are simply coloured glass

Ah, but crystal wavers invariably believe and assert that they are channeling chi or some other invented "energy" that is the source of the effects. I seriously doubt there are wavers of crystals who simply say "Its just coloured glass".

So I'd say yes, people do indeed like their rituals. It provides structure, a very reassuring system during a troubling period. But I would rather maximise the placebo/ritual benefits of actual medical procedures rather than give a moments notice to elaborate crystal ceremonies that do achieve nothing beyond the placebo effect.

Sapien

pH wrote: »

Is this were true, seeing as humans have had access to placebo inducing rituals for thousands of years then modern medicine would have made very little impact in the treatment of disease, being far behind (as you put it) the body's ability to heal itself.

I didn't put it that way, or indeed mean anything of the sort. I have not said that medicine is "behind" the body's ability to heal itself.

pH wrote: »

It's easy for you to sit there (presumably) in first world Ireland and prattle on about the healing power of crystals.

It should be clear from what I have written that I have not attributed any healing power to crystals.

pH wrote: »

Let me tell you there are still today millions of people without access to proper medicine (who do have access to all forms of ineffective sham healing) and the difference in the quality of life and life expectancy are huge.

I'm not sure why you presume that people who are without access to modern medicine must necessarily have access to forms of treatment that depend of the kind of effect that I am talking about. I suppose you're imagining witch doctors in deepest Africa wearing big hairy masks and waving sticks around. Not quite what I have in mind.

pH wrote: »

Now I know that maybe you might have heard auntie Nora's migraine has gotten a lot better since she started sleeping with a healing crystal under her pillow, but for millions of people facing typhoid, dysentery, polio, measles, malaria, river blindness and HIV (to name but a few) who don't have access to proper proven medical treatment all the crystals and placebo rituals in the world won't make a jot of difference.

Absolutely. Healing by placebo-like effects could only ever be useful in a limited number of situations - just like any other medical treatment. However, who's to say that such perception-based therapies couldn't be used in any kind of recovery processes - like after serious surgery, whatever it might be for, or to help with reactions to chemotherapy; not to mention psychological or psychiatric conditions. Any doctor will tell you that the body repairs itself faster when its owner is relaxed and stress-free. Perhaps it would be useful for you to see what I am describing as a somewhat more sophisticated form of that.

pH wrote: »

Despite your claims to the contrary, the body just doesn't have any effective hidden healing processes (except known properties of say the immune system).

If the body really did have these amazing self healing powers triggered by rituals, then everyone in the world would pretty much have good health and the ability to fight disease. The medicine we have here in the first world would be just the icing on the cake, a few percentage points better off for all the billions we spend on this.

I disagree. Just because I believe that the human body has self-healing abilities beyond what is formally recognised by medicine, it doesn't mean that I believe that any other people from other places in the world or points in history have been any better at exploiting it than we are. And quite the reverse of your contention that the existence of such abilities would relegate modern medicine to an anciliary role: I do not necessarily believe that these placebo-like effects could be much more than "icing on the cake". Though - who knows.

Zilla wrote:

You do realise that conventional treatments that actually involve medicine or surgery invoke a placebo effect as well as their direct impact?

Yes, absolutely - I said that quite explicitly.

Zilla wrote:

So surely our efforts should be in maximising the reassuring qualities of real medicine rather than defending crystal waving silliness that can achieve nothing but the indirect benefits of a placebo?

I have said that we should try to quantify the placebo element of standard treatments - if only to see how potent it can be. If it is found to be significant, not only should it be maximised in standard treatments, but the possibility of using it in its own right should also be explored. My point is that self-healing stimuli observed in the placebo effect could lead to distinct viable therapies, which could be used in furtherance of medical treatments, or where medical treatments are impossible or less desirable.

Zilla wrote:

Ah, but crystal wavers invariably believe and assert that they are channeling chi or some other invented "energy" that is the source of the effects. I seriously doubt there are wavers of crystals who simply say "Its just coloured glass".

As I said:

me wrote:

you understand that I am not arguing for Crystal Healing as it may be done by certain people, or for any particular theory expounded by soi-disant crystal healers.

Zilla wrote:

I would rather maximise the placebo/ritual benefits of actual medical procedures rather than give a moments notice to elaborate crystal ceremonies that do achieve nothing beyond the placebo effect.

And I'm saying that investigation into the placebo effect, or similar effects that do not depend on illusion or deception, as therapeutic agencies in their own right, is amply warranted. I think your dismissal of "nothing beyond the placebo effect" springs more from your biases as a skeptic - accustomed as you are to debunking such things rather than searching for a grain of truth behind them - than any reasoned objection to the possibilities I describe.

Obni

In response to Sapien's several posts:

Can crystal therapy be as effective a placebo as sugar-pills and water-injections? For some patients, and in the hands of the right practitioner, then I would have to admit that yes it probably could.

However, promoting such therapies for use as placebos would, by relation, lend support to alternative snake-oil hokum in general. Todays minor complaint resolved by time, attention, and placebo, may be followed by something less co-operative and the possibility of delay or misdirection by some crystal-pedaller, no matter how well intentioned, could have serious reprecussions for a patient's health.

It is a less risky, and far more elegant, solution to promote equally "empty" placebos from a conventional medicine source, so that patients seeking further treatment, for perhaps more serious conditions, will return to properly trained medical personnel.

Could crystal treatment deliver an effective placebo effect? Yes
Should it? Emphatically not!!!

Zillah

Obni does make an interesting point. I doubt most people receiving such maximised-placebo-crystal-ritual treatments would be able to differentiate between what we're doing and any other useless or downright dangerous alternative "medicine". I'd be very wary of using anything like this for fear of legitimising all manner of hokum.

Is hokum a word?

Sapien

Obni wrote: »

promoting such therapies for use as placebos would, by relation, lend support to alternative snake-oil hokum in general.

Your concern is valid, and, to be honest, it hadn't really occurred to me - but I don't believe it is enough to abandon what I expect could be a fruitful field of inquiry. At the moment the vast preponderance of alternative therapies are peddled by charlatans or idiots. What I describe is an intelligent and transparent premise for development upon a repeatedly and empirically observed effect in human healing. Surely the very point must be that if scientists working for creditable organisations appropriate these methods in a rational way, dangerous quackery can be excluded.

At present, I can see no reason why medical scientists shouldn't take this seriously, except that they are encamped opposite its traditional proponents across a bitter ideological divide.

Zillah wrote:

I'd be very wary of using anything like this for fear of legitimising all manner of hokum.

Have I convinced you to the point where that is your only remaining objection? Because that would make me very happy.

bogwalrus

Zillah wrote: »

We have no way of knowing that your illness wasn't going to go away in a day regardless of whether you ate some sugar tablets or not..

Well i used to get the same cough around the same time of year that always goes into my chest and lasts for ages. All of the perscribed meds werent as near as effective as the pills. I went to the homeopathist a complete skeptic (which should have ruled out the placebo effect=) and when it undoubtedly worked i researched a bit as to what this psuedosciences ethics and basises were and found all sorts of cool unconventional ideas that most scientists (and head strong ego's like yourself) would cringe at.

Zillah wrote: »

There is one kind of science. Homeopathy is not a science. It likes to pretend it is, but its not. What convinces you there is anything more than the placebo effect to homeopathy?.

Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Besides i dont believe i am arguing whether it can be called a science or not. It is what it is and that is a kind of method of healing that cannot yet be understood through conventional scientific experimentation and has cured many many people of many different problems. I do believe placebo works in all medicinal practices to some extent not just in homeopathy but i am personally convinced that it was not placebo in my case. First hand experience with this one.

Zillah wrote: »

While quantum mechanics might seem very strange to people who don't really understand it, it is not an excuse to assume the universe is actually some sort of magical place where all sorts of unexplainable things happen.

Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Unless we're discussing subatomic particles then referencing Quantum Mechanics is meaningless. Quantum Theory has to be the next most abused and misunderstood field of understanding in Science second only to evolution..

well the universe is quite magical and plenty of unexplainable things happen in it:)-ESPECIALLY in the quantum world which you seem to think is just straight forward conventional science. the concept of superposition, Entanglement, superluminal signalling, and the strange features of the Copenhagen experiment show that science is entering a very strange realm where rules will have to be bent and old methods of experimenting will have to be abandoned. Homeopathy, i believe, works within these strange realms and thus cannot be tested with the current knowledge of science,medicine and experimenting (or maybe it can but there is just too much skepticism).

There are many great hypothesis on the net (ones including quantum mechanics) if you had bothered to do some researching before concluding straight up that it is a wacko science. heres a link you will definitely like if you do read it all. Its basically a one sided paper but some great points.Lots of slagging of homeopathy (if anything it will open your mind up to some plausible types of experimenting that seem unconventional but can most definitely be relative to the way homeopathy works):

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars/1

Zillah wrote: »

Uh actually the evidence does exist. Every competantly run scientific study on homeopathy has proven it doesn't do anything beyond the placebo effect. Its nonesense, and its a bit sad you've fallen for it.

As for the way science works, you're not quite getting it.

Step 1 - Someone comes up with an idea on how things work (hypothesis).
Step 2 - They gather research, conduct experiments and compare evidence (experimentation + peer review).
Step 3 - If the hypothesis passes stage two it becomes a theory, which essentially means its a proposal that we're very sure is probably correct.

Until something reaches step 3 we have to assume its not correct, otherwise we'd never get anything done.

For example, lets look at the discovery of antibiotics:
Step 1 - Someone realises that penicillin has killed a load of bacteria. He has the idea that maybe this stuff could be used to cure diseases.
Step 2 - He tests it and it works, it is shown to be drastically more effective than anything before it, including the placebo effect.
Step 3 - One of the pillars of modern medicine is established.

The thing is, that with homeopathy/reflexology/crystals/whatever, they almost never bother going beyong Step 1. They just come up with a idea, play around and insist its true and that it deserves a place up there on the shelf where all the theories that reached Step 3 are. Any time that something like homeopathy has gone to Step 2 they've been crushed. Shown conclusively to be nothing more than placebos. The evidence is out in plain site for you online, there's no conspiracy, homeopathy is crap, do some reading. For example, James Randi ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills and it did nothing to him. He ate 64 times the reccomended dosage, or some absurd quantity like that.

Meh, i think you are too passionate about what you believe in to be in anyway capable of understanding someone elses view point other then the one drilled into your head:D. This is probably why you are so dismissive of claims from the pseudoscience side of life.

I like to keep an open mind about things and generally derive my conclusions from scientific experiments. But in this case i would have to say the current means of scientific experimentation cannot deduce why "sh~t loads" of people are being cured by pseudoscience means when other standard methods had failed. Plenty of info of peoples stories on the net if you fancy reading them. As i have said above i believe placebo has its small part in some cases but i think it is really an excuse used on behalf of the scientific community to try and debunk this holistic science. Not very fair imo. a bit cheeky.

On another level zillah i think that fact that you are so angry with the way homeopathy tries to get recognised as a science is what is shrouding your judgement on whether the current methods of experimenting are sufficient.maybe not though and i fully await a tearing into if i am wrong:D

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

But in this case i would have to say the current means of scientific experimentation cannot deduce why "sh~t loads" of people are being cured by pseudoscience means when other standard methods had failed.

But that is the whole point. There is no actual evidence that "sh*t loads" of people are actually being cured by pseudo-scientific means.

Any proper studies to see if people are actually being cured has shown they aren't.

What you have left is simply hear-say and wishful thinking.

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the whole point. There is no actual evidence that "sh*t loads" of people are actually being cured by pseudo-scientific means.

Any proper studies to see if people are actually being cured has shown they aren't.

What you have left is simply hear-say and wishful thinking.

so is it that people just think they are cured then?

i believe that most common problems homeopaths cure is for pain related issues (possibly all neurological issues). This is where someone has serious pain that the doc down the road cant help with so the person with bad pain goes to wacko doc who does manage to get rid of pain. Now i can see how neurological pain cant really be tested but just infered and this of course would mean that it cant be proved to have worked quantitatively but qualitavely.

To be honest i dont think these pseudosciences would be so popular if there was not some credibility to their name. do you not think?it must be working on some people. And again i think saying it is just placebo is quite silly as some of the cures that homeopathy claim to cure can be serious enough.

Personally i have experienced it working on me and trying to convince you guys that it was genuine would be a feat that i dont think im capable of:D

pH

bogwalrus wrote: »

On another level zillah i think that fact that you are so angry with the way homeopathy tries to get recognised as a science is what is shrouding your judgement on whether the current methods of experimenting are sufficient.maybe not though and i fully await a tearing into if i am wrong:D

I don't know why Zillah is so angry (I'll let him speak for himself) but I'll copy a post from the skeptics forum I made recently which explains why I am angry.

---

cut & paste

They'll sell you one of these - for First Aid - ie emergency medical care.


This is what happens when you try to treat a child who has a serious medical problem with homoeopathy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

They'll sell you water to vaccinate you against malaria and yellow fever
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71/

Not many takers for homoeopathic HIV/AIDS treatment here? Why not sell water to the poorest people in Africa to 'treat' AIDS?
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/for-homeopaths/documents/Aidsflyer.pdf

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Homoeopathy is about selling water to people as a cure. Yes most take it for non serious conditions where it acts as a cheap and side-effect free placebo, but because it's dressed up in science, because people like Peanut defend it homoeopaths do represent a serious health risk mainly to the most vulnerable people.

---

None of this works, and bogwalrus if you really want to understand why one person's cough getting better doesn't invalidate all of modern medicine, chemistry and physics then by all means let's continue, either here or here

And if you have any interest in learning, I strongly suggest reading this - it's available for free and is a pretty easy read.

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/testing-treatments.html

Scofflaw

I'd certainly agree that some people are capable of a limited amount of self-healing - and I think that is quite adequately demonstrated by the existence of the placebo effect. I would be interested in seeing research into making it clinically effective, but I feel it's probably of very minor value - something that has a place, but is not going to get you through cholera.

Fair Deal Homeopathy site, if it hasn't been referenced before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ciaran500

bogwalrus wrote: »

Homeopathy, i believe, works within these strange realms and thus cannot be tested with the current knowledge of science,medicine and experimenting (or maybe it can but there is just too much skepticism).

But we don't have to understand how it works. We just need to see repeatable results, surely that shouldn't be that hard for something that actually works. But no study has produced these results.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would be interested in seeing research into making it clinically effective, but I feel it's probably of very minor value

I believe that quite a lot of research has been done into the placebo effect -- I'm sure Myksyk knows more about this than I do -- but it's known that it's only effective for a small number of issues, such as headaches, pains, mild irritations of one kind or another. I don't believe that it's been shown to be effective for mechanical problems (broken bones, nerves etc), nor for most virally or bacterially-based diseases.

Basically, it's partially effective in controlling things that the brain controls anyway, but little else.

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.fdhom.co.uk/ Fair Deal Homeopathy

Ha! I needed a laugh this morning

bogwalrus

pH wrote: »

They'll sell you one of these - for First Aid - ie emergency medical care.


This is what happens when you try to treat a child who has a serious medical problem with homoeopathy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

They'll sell you water to vaccinate you against malaria and yellow fever
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71/

Not many takers for homoeopathic HIV/AIDS treatment here? Why not sell water to the poorest people in Africa to 'treat' AIDS?
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/for-homeopaths/documents/Aidsflyer.pdf

I could go on, but I think you get the point.[/url]

Thats very true ph. there are many organisations that are taking advantage of people via homeopathy so to make a good quick profit. But that can be said about any industry, especially the pharmaceuticle industry. Just because some corrupt individuals saw a market they called themselves homeopaths when they dont believe in it all and try to sell homeopathy as a product rather a treatment. And it is true that homeopathy should not replace the current treatments for all the serious sicknesses you mentioned above but imo should work with it.

In the last around 8 years i can think of 3-4 people i know (some close, some just friends, relatives etc) how have had cancer. Two of these people i know are complete hippies and most definitely entered into the world of alternative medicine. they are both still around to this day and i can imagine the doctors said something like "i dont think you have longer than 2 years...etc" That phrase as we all hear from patients gets said by doctors who appear to be sure of the prognosis but then appears to be wrong. I beleive in medicine that because this is shown to do that does not mean a certain outcome will come about. As in if the highly qualified doctor does some tests and shows that the person will not live for another year then to everyones surprise the person lives to 8 years or even longer. So i conclude from these kind of stories that there are more variables to be taken into account and that these are just not known. (i know i didnt explain that great but i think you get what i mean)

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd certainly agree that some people are capable of a limited amount of self-healing - and I think that is quite adequately demonstrated by the existence of the placebo effect. I would be interested in seeing research into making it clinically effective, but I feel it's probably of very minor value - something that has a place, but is not going to get you through cholera.

robindch wrote: »

I believe that quite a lot of research has been done into the placebo effect -- I'm sure Myksyk knows more about this than I do -- but it's known that it's only effective for a small number of issues, such as headaches, pains, mild irritations of one kind or another. I don't believe that it's been shown to be effective for mechanical problems (broken bones, nerves etc), nor for most virally or bacterially-based diseases.

I'll take that. Of course, as a magickian, I'm allowed to believe that the brain can do all kinds of things that aren't presently obvious. But there's a very deep cleft in modes of thought there, so I think I'll settle for not-quite-total dismissal.

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

so is it that people just think they are cured then?

You say that as it that type of thing doesn't happen all the time.

bogwalrus wrote: »

i believe that most common problems homeopaths cure is for pain related issues (possibly all neurological issues). This is where someone has serious pain that the doc down the road cant help with so the person with bad pain goes to wacko doc who does manage to get rid of pain. Now i can see how neurological pain cant really be tested but just infered and this of course would mean that it cant be proved to have worked quantitatively but qualitavely.

Alternative medicine talks a lot about "pain". This isn't a coincidence.

Pain is simply a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. A doctor won't say that a medical treatment or a drug cured your "pain", they will say that they cured what was causing you to be in pain. There is a big difference.

These alternative medicines say they fix your pain. What that really means is they convinced a person that they weren't feeling the pain anymore, or that they felt less pain afterwards. They, cleverly, very rarely claim they actually cured the cause of the pain, because they probably know they did no such thing, assuming they even know what the cause of the pain is in the first place.

The fact that a person doesn't feeling as much in pain after as before actually has little to do with whether or not the treatment has cured anything.

bogwalrus wrote: »

To be honest i dont think these pseudosciences would be so popular if there was not some credibility to their name. do you not think?

That is very faulty logic, logic shared by lots of religions (if jesus wasn't really the son of God why do so many people believe he is ... if Mohammad wasn't really a prophet for Allah why do so many people believe he is etc etc)

It is an unfortunate trait of humanity that people rush to embrace easy solutions to difficult problems.

bogwalrus wrote: »

And again i think saying it is just placebo is quite silly as some of the cures that homeopathy claim to cure can be serious enough.

Given the choice between the brain some how healing the body and droplets of distilled water some how healing the body I will take the brain every time, no matter how unlikely that is.

To claim that the placebo effect is some how more unlikely than water having a memory of a molecule that would have no positive effect in curing a person even if it was present in the water in the first place, is frankly ridiculous.

bogwalrus wrote: »

Personally i have experienced it working on me and trying to convince you guys that it was genuine would be a feat that i dont think im capable of:D

Well that is the thing. You have absolutely no idea if it was genuine, so you aren't in a position to do so even if you wanted to.

If it didn't work and you are deluding yourself that it did you won't know you are, and as such are not in a position to tell us. If it did actually work you won't know it did, and again are not in a position to tell what actually worked, the homeopathy or the placebo effect.

There is a reason why people do scientific studies and proper examinations of the effects of drugs rather than simply giving a patient a pill and asking him

"So what did that do when you swallowed it?"

If only it was that easy ....

18AD

There're already certain therapies used and tested. Although, homeopathy is not one of them.
http://www.ahta.org/information/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_therapy

In any case, I'd say the way these things work is not that they directly cure the disease itself, but rather enhance neaurological functioning and in turn enhance the bodies natural defence system. But with this in mind, you don't need homeopathy to keep your brain healthy and maintain a positive outlook.

People should utilise the placebo effect as it is beneficial. It'd be handy if this could be done without lies.

All the best.
AD.

bogwalrus

Ciaran500 wrote: »

But we don't have to understand how it works. We just need to see repeatable results, surely that shouldn't be that hard for something that actually works. But no study has produced these results.

Well there are plenty of results in many peoples eyes when they go to the theraphy and come out cured (or feeling cured but actually not, so the case may be ) like the many people i have read about and heard of. There was a great chat on the Pat Kenny show a couple of weeks ago with this author who had written a book debunking homeopathy and saying it was a scam.

Loads of genuine callers rang in saying how she was wrong and that they had been cured from different problems through homeopathy and reflexology. Even pat kenny said that he went to a reflexologist who fixed his back pain when the doctor couldnt.
Now i didnt at the time really care about the arquement going on but one thing i did notice is that the authors view was completely closed minded and when homeopathists (who called in) were trying to explain to her that the pseudoscience of homeopathy is unconventional to normal medicine and the usual ,"this chemical mixed with this chemical gives you a cure" is different to the way they combine their elements and create their cures she was just completely dismissive and citing the same scientific proof phrases over and over.


As far as current testing goes i believe the knowledge to test these alternative types of medicine is just not there and is being aproached in a very clinical and blunt manner. The phrase "looking in the wrong place" springs to mind.

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

The phrase "looking in the wrong place" springs to mind.

The phrase "wishful thinking" springs to mind also

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

You say that as it that type of thing doesn't happen all the time. ....

well if someone is ill and then gets better from some kind of cure then usually they are cured. i really never did hear of people getting sick, being told that they have been cured (but not really) and going on with their lives healthy "thinking" they are cured and not ever noticing the sickness again. You either are cured or your not. i think your thinking of wacko patients who dont even know what planet their on.

Wicknight wrote: »

Alternative medicine talks a lot about "pain". This isn't a coincidence.

Pain is simply a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. A doctor won't say that a medical treatment or a drug cured your "pain", they will say that they cured what was causing you to be in pain. There is a big difference.

These alternative medicines say they fix your pain. What that really means is they convinced a person that they weren't feeling the pain anymore, or that they felt less pain afterwards. They, cleverly, very rarely claim they actually cured the cause of the pain, because they probably know they did no such thing, assuming they even know what the cause of the pain is in the first place.

The fact that a person doesn't feeling as much in pain after as before actually has little to do with whether or not the treatment has cured anything. ....

I understand the causal nature of pain quite well=) What i am saying is that these hompepaths can cure certain sicknesses be it neurological,physical etc not just get rid of the pain but deal with the problem causing the pain. Since i am talking of the causal nature of pain have you ever heard of downward causation? most scientists portray a very metaphysical assupmtion that there can only be upward causation e.g a patient gets ill so uses physical substances to alter the body to deal with the sickness. Downward causation would be the reversal of this where thought and will alone can bring about physical change in the body. i dont mean in a placebo way but as in a new paradigm.

Check this for info as it is very ineteresting and can support some of what i say about homeopathy and the fact that scientists are just looking in the wrong place:

http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue04/r04_Sperry.html

Wicknight wrote: »

That is very faulty logic, logic shared by lots of religions (if jesus wasn't really the son of God why do so many people believe he is ... if Mohammad wasn't really a prophet for Allah why do so many people believe he is etc etc)

It is an unfortunate trait of humanity that people rush to embrace easy solutions to difficult problems. ....

i admit i phrased it like a theist would:D But surely you could see through my point. large numbers of people, millions possibly have claimed to be cured by these pseudosciences. That is proof enough for me. Not for you obviously but that is something we can just agree to differ on. I really dont beleive people are being scammed by these alternative medicines. The numbers just dont add up and its not like there is some propoganda trail to follow which leads to some kind of hypno advertising campaign making these people go to homeopathists and believe they have been cured from being a vampire or what not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is the thing. You have absolutely no idea if it was genuine, so you aren't in a position to do so even if you wanted to.

If it didn't work and you are deluding yourself that it did you won't know you are, and as such are not in a position to tell us. If it did actually work you won't know it did, and again are not in a position to tell what actually worked, the homeopathy or the placebo effect.

There is a reason why people do scientific studies and proper examinations of the effects of drugs rather than simply giving a patient a pill and asking him

"So what did that do when you swallowed it?"

If only it was that easy ....

well i believe it was genuine. i have experienced a variety of medications throughout my very young life and can tell the differnt side effects and what not. As i said i had the same cough recurring for years and had used different meds previously. They all had their unique tastes and side effects. I really dont trust all these pharmeceuticle products no more as they are corporate scum trying to get their products out there. The one time i try these sugar pills i went from bad chest cough to a huge difference the next day. My lungs felt great and i felt great. No other explanation other than that the pills did most definitely do something. ANd to top that off i have not had the same bad cough in the last two years. But i admit that could be due to the fact that i am living somewhere else.


SUre can we just say its differences in opinion?

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

well if someone is ill and then gets better from some kind of cure then usually they are cured.

And if they just think they are cured?

That is the problem with relying on personal diagnosis when assessing alternative medicine. A person will often think they are better after the promise of a cure, even if nothing has actually happened to them.

bogwalrus wrote: »

i really never did hear of people getting sick, being told that they have been cured (but not really) and going on with their lives healthy "thinking" they are cured and not ever noticing the sickness again.

I seriously doubt any of the studies you are talking about that claim to demonstrate homoeopathy actually cures have followed any patients long enough to actually determine that they never notice their sickness again.

As homoeopaths freely admit it isn't supposed to be used to treat really serious disease, such as cancer, that don't just go away.

bogwalrus wrote: »

You either are cured or your not. i think your thinking of wacko patients who dont even know what planet their on.

No offence but you seem rather ignorant of this whole subject.

You are not either "cured or your not" ... there is plenty of evidence that the bodies response to disease fluctuates and can be effected by other asks such as stress. There have been studies that found that simply visiting the doctor, even if he doesn't actually do anything, can relieve symptoms such as pain, suggesting a strong link between the mental state of the patient and how they perceive their symptoms.

bogwalrus wrote: »

What i am saying is that these hompepaths can cure certain sicknesses be it neurological,physical etc not just get rid of the pain but deal with the problem causing the pain.

There has never been any evidence that that is actually true beyond mere hear-say.

Personal testimony is irrelevant because the vast majority of patients cannot themselves assess if the problem has actually been cured. Claiming you were cured is not the same thing as actually being cured.

Any time this has actually been studied by people who could actually determine if a person is cured they found no statistical effect of homoeopathy beyond simply doing nothing.

bogwalrus wrote: »

Downward causation would be the reversal of this where thought and will alone can bring about physical change in the body. i dont mean in a placebo way but as in a new paradigm.

I have heard of downward causation and that isn't what it means. It doesn't say that "thought and will alone" can bring about physical changes, it is a general idea in philosophical science where the macro-functions of a system can effect the micro-functions rather than the more classical view where the micro-functions of a system combine to form the macro-functions of the system.

An example of this in the area of medicine would be a person getting sick because of the macro-functions of a working environment. The macro-world (the work place made up of trillons of atoms, people, air currents, interacting systems) causes an effect in the micro-world of say the persons liver.

It is simply a different way of looking at causality, some what related to chaos theory.

It includes the placebo effect, so I'm not sure what you mean by "[not] in a placebo effect way"

bogwalrus wrote: »

Check this for info as it is very ineteresting and can support some of what i say about homeopathy and the fact that scientists are just looking in the wrong place:

No actually it is the exact opposite.

Homoeopathy is based on the idea of (very very) micro-functions (the interaction between the water molecules and the body) producing larger macro-functions (the disease is cured and the person gets better)

The idea of downward causation would actually be used in with the idea that the water molecules are actually doing absolutely nothing and it is the entire macro-experience of the patient (the learning about homoeopathy, going to the homoeopathy, the whole ritual, the belief something has happened etc.) that can have a smaller (downward) function on the human body effecting the either the disease or the perception of the disease.

In essence the placebo effect.

bogwalrus wrote: »

large numbers of people, millions possibly have claimed to be cured by these pseudosciences. That is proof enough for me.

Well it shouldn't be, though if it is I can see why you believe in this stuff.

Million believe Elvis is still alive. Truth isn't a democracy.

bogwalrus wrote: »

I really dont beleive people are being scammed by these alternative medicines. The numbers just dont add up and its not like there is some propoganda trail to follow which leads to some kind of hypno advertising campaign making these people go to homeopathists and believe they have been cured from being a vampire or what not.

You have two things you need, 1) people looking for a quick fix cure, and 2) people willing to sell people a quick fix cure. That is all anyone has ever needed.

As with psychics, you might want to consider how many homoeopaths work for free?

bogwalrus wrote: »

I really dont trust all these pharmeceuticle products no more as they are corporate scum trying to get their products out there.

Well that could be exactly why you are perfect for people to sell homoeopathy products to you ...

bogwalrus wrote: »

ANd to top that off i have not had the same bad cough in the last two years. But i admit that could be due to the fact that i am living somewhere else.

I don't even think I need to say anything here

bogwalrus wrote: »

SUre can we just say its differences in opinion?

Certainly.

Its your money you can do what you like with. It is simply that if you are going to post that you think it works I'm going to post that I don't.

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

And if they just think they are cured?

That is the problem with relying on personal diagnosis when assessing alternative medicine. A person will often think they are better after the promise of a cure, even if nothing has actually happened to them. .

It probably depends on the person. Im definitely not one of those people. I just cant see how some1 who is in pain can think the pain is gone be it after 2mins of homeopathy.its either gone or still there. But i do see the logic in what you are saying and that has to do with placebo. People believe that its a cure so it will be a cure...and so on.

Wicknight wrote: »

I seriously doubt any of the studies you are talking about that claim to demonstrate homoeopathy actually cures have followed any patients long enough to actually determine that they never notice their sickness again.

As homoeopaths freely admit it isn't supposed to be used to treat really serious disease, such as cancer, that don't just go away. .

Your doubt is based on your logical opinion and i fully respect that. Though dont you think if some1 who went to get treated by a homeopothist and found to be sick soon after would be shouting out scam. And lets say a million people went to get treated. Surely all of them would be going back complaining bringing about the demise of this so called science.

Or else the oppiste is happening where people are happy with the treatment and being cured etc.....as i said something has to account for its popularity and you cant compare it to religion cause thats just plain brainwashing and psychological insecurity (or something along those lines). Maybe homeopathy is some new advanced kind of brainwashing though?

Wicknight wrote: »

No offence but you seem rather ignorant of this whole subject.

You are not either "cured or your not" ... there is plenty of evidence that the bodies response to disease fluctuates and can be effected by other asks such as stress. There have been studies that found that simply visiting the doctor, even if he doesn't actually do anything, can relieve symptoms such as pain, suggesting a strong link between the mental state of the patient and how they perceive their symptoms. .

If i seem ignorant it is merely due to a lack of knowledge.

Now about being cured or not cured. I was not including placebo effects or mental states of patients and how they perceive their symptoms. I was quite bluntly saying if a person has a problem that problem can be fixed or remain. Man goes to doctor with sickness, doc gives medication, medication cures sickness, man no longer feels sick.

Now there is other cases where people with certain pain in their body go to doctors to look for a cure and all they give is pain killers-this i would call being not cured as the pain killers are just supressing the pain. Homeopathy on the other hand claims to cure the pain that cannot be cured by doctors and as i have said that is usually the main bulk of their clients (so it appears).

Now like you mentioned above about the studies of people who "feel better" (not cured) when they go to the doctors. I would just call these psychological affects related to illnesses of the mind or of a certain nature like neurological pain where it is bad neurons in the mind sending false signals or something. It has nothing to do with my blunt statement of "if your cured your cured" because someone who feels better when they go to a doctors office obviously still has the sickness they had before they decided to go there in the first place. It is until the doc deduces what the problem is that he/she can be treated and possibly cured.

Wicknight wrote: »

There has never been any evidence that that is actually true beyond mere hear-say.

Personal testimony is irrelevant because the vast majority of patients cannot themselves assess if the problem has actually been cured. Claiming you were cured is not the same thing as actually being cured.

Any time this has actually been studied by people who could actually determine if a person is cured they found no statistical effect of homoeopathy beyond simply doing nothing. .

I do not believe personal testimony is irrelevant at all. especially in what you are saying. people do know if they have been cured. If i have a pain and its still there after treatment then i am not cured and it is most definitely not blocked by some kind of psychological block. Recurring symptoms are usually the sign that the illness is still there and you would need to be a bit messed up in the head to dismiss them and think you are cured.

It is true that the studies have shown no conclusive proof of homeopathy working through those conventioanl/classical types of testing But homeopathists deal with treating their patients very differently than the way normal docs would treat theirs. And the relationship between patient, doc and the symtoms at that time all seem to be relevant amongst other things like energy physics. Sure have a look at this link and it will save me from explaining it (poorley at that)

:http://www.hpathy.com/research/bhatia-scientific-research.asp

Wicknight wrote: »

I have heard of downward causation and that isn't what it means. It doesn't say that "thought and will alone" can bring about physical changes, it is a general idea in philosophical science where the macro-functions of a system can effect the micro-functions rather than the more classical view where the micro-functions of a system combine to form the macro-functions of the system.

An example of this in the area of medicine would be a person getting sick because of the macro-functions of a working environment. The macro-world (the work place made up of trillons of atoms, people, air currents, interacting systems) causes an effect in the micro-world of say the persons liver.

It is simply a different way of looking at causality, some what related to chaos theory. .

well i know it doesnt say that "thought and will alone" thats just how i stored it in my head.Afterall the first time i read about it was in a Dalai Llama book and then from David Bohm who likes to be very philosophical in his physics.

I appreciate your explanation of downward causation as it is very informative, thanks, but that is not the only way to describe downward causation. By thought i mean "non-physical" effects on the body bringing about physical changes (which could be considered macro). Not like emotional,psychological,environmental effects but ones of will and thought etc. And downward causation can be explained in this way also, you think of effect or an effect is somehow put in place that brings about the cause. this is the part that i see as being someway relative to the works in homeopathy. It kind of brings into it that whole idea of controlling your wants and the law of attraction.

Wicknight wrote: »

It includes the placebo effect, so I'm not sure what you mean by "[not] in a placebo effect way".

Placebo is one thing, what i am talking about is another thing.

Wicknight wrote: »

No actually it is the exact opposite.

Homoeopathy is based on the idea of (very very) micro-functions (the interaction between the water molecules and the body) producing larger macro-functions (the disease is cured and the person gets better)

The idea of downward causation would actually be used in with the idea that the water molecules are actually doing absolutely nothing and it is the entire macro-experience of the patient (the learning about homoeopathy, going to the homoeopathy, the whole ritual, the belief something has happened etc.) that can have a smaller (downward) function on the human body effecting the either the disease or the perception of the disease.

In essence the placebo effect. ".

Again i appreciate the info. very informative and interesting.My views in its working are like above differnt and more based on quantum physics than classical.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it shouldn't be, though if it is I can see why you believe in this stuff.

Million believe Elvis is still alive. Truth isn't a democracy. .

I dont think i have ever heard anyone be so skeptical of people being able to tell weather they are cured from a pain/illness or not. can you explain how this shroud appears over their eyes,aches and pains so that they think they are cured but not?. Baffled i am. And you know your elvis comparisson is just unrelated to this patient blindfolding situation. Truth aint a democracy but its sure hard to find.

Wicknight wrote: »

You have two things you need, 1) people looking for a quick fix cure, and 2) people willing to sell people a quick fix cure. That is all anyone has ever needed.

As with psychics, you might want to consider how many homoeopaths work for free?
.

Ha, quick fix cure my arse. Homeopaths arent cheap and a panadol in the local shop is usually the quickest way no? besides homeopaths usually work from home and are quite hard to find. i would see an equivilent of the homeopath as being that expensive organic store around the corner.

And a good point to say about homeopathy is that their medicines and dilutions cannot be mass produced as they have to be administered specific to the symtoms at that moment to the patient. This is to ensure that their medicines/methods work to the fullest.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that could be exactly why you are perfect for people to sell homoeopathy products to you ... .

it cured like a charm also=) i would recommend you to try it. next errectile disfunction maybe?:rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't even think I need to say anything here .

Just trying to show that i am being honest and not biased in my researching. It is still to me very plausible that science has not yet figured out everything in life and the physical/metaphysical world and why not an answer for this homeopath.

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly.

Its your money you can do what you like with. It is simply that if you are going to post that you think it works I'm going to post that I don't.

Well you have to try it to be a true critic and scientist. as i said when the micky fails again maybe try the witch doctor/homeopathist down the road in the ginger bread house. She might have exactly what you and the missus needs:D

Obni

I am just about as skeptical as anyone on this forum.
A couple of years ago I was brought to A&E with abdominal pain. Before I could be opened up to whip out my appendix, the pain subsided and a barrage of tests showed nothing out of the ordinary. After a period of observation I returned to work and had no further symptoms for about 2 months. Then a letter arrived informing me of a standard follow-up out-patients visit, to check the status of my complaint. Within an hour I began to have sporadic minor twinges, which continued until about 5 seconds after my appointment ended. Psychosomatic pain. I suspected it was such; I was aware that the imminent visit was the source of minor stress inducing this vague pain; yet despite my understanding of the situation the pain (minor thought it was) persisted.
The fact that you understand ideas like psychosomatic pain or placebo treatments, doesn't necessarily reduce their effect. Comprehension at a concious level can be over-ridden by ingrained anxieties or expectations.

bogwalrus wrote: »

I just cant see how some1 who is in pain can think the pain is gone be it after 2mins of homeopathy.its either gone or still there.
[clipped]
Placebo is one thing, what i am talking about is another thing.
[clipped]
it cured like a charm also=) i would recommend you to try it.

Arrogance is a word often thrown at athiests, and perhaps it is, at times, warranted.
However, nothing compares to the staggering arrogance regularly shown by supporters of such drivel as homeopathy.
Why do so many people admit the existence and effectiveness of the placebo effect, yet proceed to state that in their particular case it was something else entirely?
What makes them immune to the vagaries of the human mind, to which the rest of us are still subject?

The fact that pain stops following treatment, especially low-level pain, nausea, digestive complaints, or minor depression, with no clear trauma or disease related cause, does not prove the efficacy of such treatment.
For centuries physicians have been dispensing sugar-pills, bread-pills, foul-tasting medicines with no active ingredient, and administering water injections. All to relieve stress and anxiety and to convince the patient that their concerns were being considered, and that they were being appropriately treated.

stereoroid

I saw a great example of the Placebo effect on the Mythbusters show a while ago. They were testing seasickness cures, and a placebo was sneaked in to the test. One subject exhibited a placebo effect, and the other didn't. This matches other research I've seen (example), which concludes that while the effect has its uses, it's not going to work on everyone equally, and is not a substitute for proper medical treatment.

What is interesting is that, even after the placebo effect was eliminated, they still found a natural cure (ginger) that worked better than the pharmaceutical product, and with less of a side-effect (drowsiness).

(Insert standard "Mythbusters is not rigorous enough / it's only a TV show" remark here.)

Zombrex

stereoroid wrote: »

What is interesting is that, even after the placebo effect was eliminated, they still found a natural cure (ginger) that worked better than the pharmaceutical product, and with less of a side-effect (drowsiness).

Medicial science has nothing against "natural" cures, when it can be demonstrated properly (double blind tests) that they actually do something.

Any time anyone has tried to demonstrate properly that homoeopathy does something they have failed to find any statistical evidence it does.

On the other hand studies on the effects of ginger have found that it can ease nausea.

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it won't work. The issue is that people want certain treatments to work so they convince themselves that they do. If homoeopathy worked it should be easy to demonstrate that it does. The claim that it works but there are all these convoluted excuses as to why it cannot be demonstrated to work, is simply silly.