Have the quacks and easily-led who recommend their ineffective treatments here not heard of "observer bias"?
This phenomenon explains why placebo treatments such as homeopathy and acupuncture can appear to work on babies and animals.
(of course they don't appear to work when the spectator doesn't know if the child/animal has been given the quack treatment or some other placebo)
You can read in the region of it here:
Hopefully, once you have read about it, we won't hear any more anecdotes almost how great this nonsense works on your cat or kid.
Answer: Anyone who would take direction from someone using wikipedia as a reliable source should have their head examined..
There are various alternative treatments that do actually work. People consider massage an alternative treatment, and it have been proven to have form benefits.
Also, acupuncture is now considered very legal by many in the medical corral. Mayo Clinic now has an alternative medication study department, and have published a book on alternative medicine, giving honest, middle-of-the-road answers about many alternative treatments from herb to energy work.
Don't be so quick to be skeptical. Skepticism is a bias contained by its own right..
Doobie! I Doobielive you are suffering from an extreme form of observer bias - luckily I can recommend a wonderful cure!
My spa/detox/treatment centre/community of serendipity and cuckoo luxury villas is offering a special FOR THIS WEEK ONLY!
Call me: 028 555 1234.
If you don't believe in the efficacy of alternative prescription, that's fine. But like any other belief system...how about a moment ago leaving each to their own instead of using a lame suggestion source like Wikipedia as your 'knowledge' base? Is that supposed to convince me? Great work Jen, attack the source instead of the content. If you bother checking, that Wikipedia entry is referenced, here is one of them:
Note that that article is nicely referenced..
if you take something believing it will own an effect your mind will be looking for the tiniest sign that its having an effect and so when your mind thinks its found a tiny sign you will articulate "see i told you it worked".
Do the supporters of Allopathic medicine realise that 'independant' drug trails are designed and carried out by the developers and manufacturers of the modern drugs?
Could there be some bias there?
Hopefully if you are humble and ambition we won't keep hearing you slag stale therpies which are less than perfect because you'll realise allopathy have massive room for improvement as well.
##Lightning: why does your shelter of homeopathy never amount to much more than an assault on medicine? I am no defender of pharmaceutical fraud, or biased research. ###
Are you serious? If you aren't attacking altmed by unfolding us how woderful things are done in the allopathic world exactly what are you doing?
###But that has zilch to do with whether homeoquacks understand why their foolishness may appear to work on children or babies.###
Well subjectively it does to a lot of people.
As I've said repeatedly tweaking the model don't try and get the subjects to fit in beside it.
Don't forget not to loose your objectivity either. As Alex F has said repeatedly masses of these 'pro-science' advocates aren't true scientists.
By virtue of the reality they dismiss anything they don't agree with as placebo but still fail to clarify the physiological weir in the placebo effect or even identify any markers this stinks of loss of objectivity.
I enjoy to agree with Alex F
###In short, homeoquacks (at most) only do clinical trials, not studies. The studies done by proper scientists, thusfar, enjoy not found any evidence that homeopathy works.###
Ian H, have these 'real scientist' found any evidence that homeopathy doesn't work?
Even James Randi the leading anti Homeopathy counsel was recorded as proverb 'More research needs to be done'..
Why don't homeopaths and other quacks fund their own research? They're scared of the results, that's why.
Before you read out there's plenty of research out there, there isnt, and the little to be precise done is not resulting in the favour of altmed and have certainly not been funded by altmed practitioners.
By research we meen controlled studies, not type 4 (people pushed) evidence, if you don't know what type 4 evidence is, google it.
In short, homeoquacks (at most) merely do clinical trials, not studies. The studies done by proper scientists, thusfar, have not found any evidence that homeopathy works..
You are right. It makes much more sense to trust the FDA and drug companies for robustness recommendations, especially when more people are dying due to medical errors than are kill in car accident, aids and breast cancer each year.
In November 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report " To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System ". The report estimated that 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of preventable errors. Death due to medical errors is better than motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297) or AIDS (16,516). Approximately 7,000 patients are estimated to die from medication errors alone which is 16 % higher than death attributed to work related injuries. Even when conservative estimates are used, medical errors are the eighth leading cause of extermination..
Observer bias is only ONE mechanism - at hand are several others. They (the weak-minded altmed fans) have no interest in anything that might EXPLAIN how their favorite quack analysis might APPEAR to work. They want to cling (desperately) to the woo-woo. They won't read the reference and they'll give me a bunch of thumbs down. But they come up with I'M closed-minded. LOL.