Homeopathic "medicine" and other alternative methods of healing

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by tk102:

I would like to hear your take on the placebo effect, Spider. Placebos are irration and yet to some extent, they are effective.

As ET points out, you're incorrect. The placebo is not effective at all. The patient may become more positive and think more positively if they believe that they're taking an effective pill... but that does not make the pill effective.

 

Positive thought can help someone's morale during an illness. But you don't need to lie to yourself and you don't need others to lie to you in order to achieve a positive mindset. Therefore placebos are not useful, therapeutically speaking.

 

Furthermore positive thinking by itself has never been shown to remedy serious illnesses in any meaningful way. I think that effectively addresses your assertions concerning that particular issue.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

I know science often uses placebo as baseline for measuring effectiveness, which is to say it defines the effectiveness of placebo as zero.

The effectiveness of a placebo is zero. The point of such blind tests is that it negates the effect of positive thinking (among other factors) upon the test-subjects. Such tests are ALL that placebos are useful for.

 

In such a test, ALL participants are taking a pill. They cannot tell whether the pill is real or a placebo. Thus they all have the same level of positivity/negativity regarding said pill. Thus the only effect that is measured in the results is the effect of the real drug.

 

Thus the therapeutic factor is basically isolated and can be relied upon with more certainty.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

However, if the symptoms have been reduced by placebo, isn't that something of a benefit that should not be discounted?

As stated before, positive thinking is good, and you don't need a placebo (a homeopathic remedy for instance) to achieve it. So of course the "benefit" you're describing can and should be discounted. Why lie to people when you can tell them the truth and achieve the same results?

 

Originally posted by tk102:

And a step farther... if there is no other known medical option, is it moral to take away someone's belief in a placebo just because it is an irrational belief?

Yes, of course it's moral. Their time would be better spent searching the world for medical trials and cutting-edge experimental (but scientifically based) treatments rather than drinking a bottle of magic water on the say-so of some swami or other. It would be moral to show them that truth. It would be immoral to perpetuate the lie.

[tk102]

I remain completely unconvinced, but thank you for answering.

[Spider AL]

You're quite welcome.

 

If you'd like to give some logical reasons to explain the fact that you're still unconvinced, I for one would be most interested to read them, as I can't for the life of me think of any such reasons myself.

[Jae Onasi]

I don't know of any condition where a placebo is given as part of the standard of care.

[RoxStar]

I have benefited as a diabetic from many alternate/natural medicines and therapies.

[tk102]

First to clarify what I am not arguing:

 

I'm not arguing that a placebo pill has an inherent effectiveness in and of itself, nor am I arguing that placebos should or should not be used as a baseline to measure other drugs against. I'm not arguing that the placebo effect has been shown to remedy serious illness.

 

What I am arguing against is the stance the belief placebos is inherently harmful, and by the nature of its irrationality, bad in all cases.

 

Positive thinking if defined as saying to yourself "I'm going to beat this illness...", is not the same as a placebo. The idea that you will in the future beat the illness is much different than thinking that you are presently beating the illness. This a distinction worth noting. If you will do something, then it means are not doing it now. Thus your symptoms are not improving. Maybe in the future they will. Now, if the positive thinker affirmed and believed "I am beating this illness through the power of my positive thinking," that would be the same as a placebo, would have the placebo effect, and would be labelled the same way by some as "lying to yourself".

 

I acknowledge that if a medicine, scientifically shown to be effective in a double-blind study, is available for a treatment of course it should be used. However, if there is no cure for the treatment, I argue that it is immoral to try to take away a person's belief in the placebo. You would rather that person not use the irrational power of their own mind to improve their condition simply because it is irrational. (It seems to be a recurring theme throughout this forum that belief without evidence is irrational and must be abolished.) Because belief is required, the placebo effect cannot be rationalized. By being completely rational, you cannot have the placebo effect unless it accompanies something that you believe is an effective treatment.

 

If you take away the belief of someone, you give them little else except what? Positive thinking for something to happen in the future? It is better instead to help someone keep looking for a scientifically proven effective treatment while not discouraging their use of the placebo. That is the best of both worlds.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by tk102:

What I am arguing against is the stance the belief placebos is inherently harmful, and by the nature of its irrationality, bad in all cases.

Well then you're certainly not arguing against me, because I for one have certainly never stated anything so silly. In fact, reading through this thread I can't see that anyone has stated anything so silly.

 

I mean, please direct me to a quote if I've missed it.

 

What I for one stated (in my first post) was: "Belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy is not supported by evidence, therefore it is irrational, and like all irrational beliefs it is intrinsically worthless and may well result in negative consequences for the person who holds it, and for those around them. Beliefs must be based on reason and evidence to be valid. End of story."

 

Let's examine that:

 

1. "Belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy is not supported by evidence, therefore it is irrational ..." (obvious)

 

2. "... and like all irrational beliefs it is intrinsically worthless ..." (Indeed, irrational beliefs have no intrinsic worth. A rational belief has worth because it enables one to operate efficiently within the world, it enables one to predict likely outcomes with a certain degree of accuracy. Your contention is that an irrational belief that one is getting better may have positive effects on oneself if one is sick. This ignores the fact that any perceived positive effect can also be attained through rational means, therefore there is no need for the irrational belief, as you imply. More on this later.)

 

3. "... and may well result in negative consequences for the person who holds it, and for those around them. ..." (Once again, obvious. An irrational belief in homeopathy for instance may result in a sick person eschewing conventional treatments and/or giving up the SEARCH for experimental- but still scientifically based- treatments for their ailment.)

 

4. "... Beliefs must be based on reason and evidence to be valid. End of story." (And again, uncontestable. A belief without evidence to support it is merely chaotic conjecture, without foundation, it is not logical, robust, nor reliable.)

 

Originally posted by tk102:

Now, if the positive thinker affirmed and believed "I am beating this illness through the power of my positive thinking," that would be the same as a placebo, would have the placebo effect, and would be labelled the same way by some as "lying to yourself".

Firstly, with all these hypothetical distinctions between different types of positive thinking, you have missed a rather important chain of reasoning.

 

1. Placebos by their very nature do not cure illnesses.

2. The "placebo effect" is merely psychological.

3. Therefore it is not the placebo that is responsible for the psychological effect, but the person themselves.

4. People taking dummy pills often convince themselves that their symptoms are less severe as a result.

5. Therefore a person is capable of mentally controlling their perception of their own symptoms to an appreciable degree. (And this is the absolute best one can hope for from either placebos or isolated positive thinking)

 

And your contention that the only way of accomplishing this is by lying to yourself (and/or being lied to by some swami/guru) is flatly false. Meditation, visualisation, repetition of positive phrases are all fairly good at managing pain, etcetera. They don't require falsehood.

 

As an example, I don't need to say: "my wound is spontaneously healing due to this badger-nose-pill I just swallowed (false) therefore I feel no pain".

 

To accomplish a very positive result, I merely need to repeat to myself: "I am in control of my pain (which is true), I am compartmentalising my pain, I feel no pain." Irrational beliefs are not required, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

I acknowledge that if a medicine, scientifically shown to be effective in a double-blind study, is available for a treatment of course it should be used. However, if there is no cure for the treatment, I argue that it is immoral to try to take away a person's belief in the placebo.

As far as I can see you have no basis for this argument. First of all, as stated before, a belief in homeopathic quackery can only distract a sick person from seeking experimental scientific treatments for their ailment. It can only distract them from campaigning for more research into their ailment.

 

And even in the most dire hypothetical, if I found I was terminally ill and there was literally NO possible scientific treatment for my disease... and NO possibility of finding ANY experimental scientific treatments... I wouldn't want to spend my last weeks convinced that the glorified bottle of spring water that Dr. Quacko gave me was beating my illness. (Something you earlier stated was necessary to engender a really positive placebo effect.)

 

Instead I would want to know the truth, that I was doomed... and I would want to know this so that I could soberly and carefully prepare for my own demise. False hope, after all, is merely escapism.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

You would rather that person not use the irrational power of their own mind to improve their condition simply because it is irrational.

I for one would rather they used the RATIONAL power of their own mind to improve their condition, rather than believing in ghosts and shadows, and thereby making themselves:

 

1. vulnerable to snake-oil salesmen,

2. open to the effects of mass hysteria &

3. prone to poor decision-making in general.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

(It seems to be a recurring theme throughout this forum that belief without evidence is irrational and must be abolished.)

Belief without evidence is irrational, and people in general would be better off if they discarded their blind faith and replaced it with critical thought and rationalism. That's not really up for debate, it's axiomatic. However nobody on this forum has been advocating the abolition of people's right to hold irrational beliefs, as far as I'm aware.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

If you take away the belief of someone

On a side-note, I have to comment on your perrennial usage of terms like "take away their belief". I would like to contrast this type of language with my own terminology, namely "take away their delusion", or "reveal to them the truth", or "show them the facts, and the logical arguments". Just a point to consider.

 

Originally posted by tk102:

It is better instead to help someone keep looking for a scientifically proven effective treatment while not discouraging their use of the placebo. That is the best of both worlds.

That doesn't make much sense, TK. If as you stated earlier, the person taking the placebo MUST BELIEVE IT'S EFFECTIVE in order for the placebo effect to occur in its most positive form... How motivated is this person going to be to find a scientifically based remedy? I mean they already believe that their bottle of water is curing their ailment. Why go looking for something else?

 

No, I'm afraid that rationalism and irrationality cannot comfortably co-exist in the real world.

 

-

 

I have benefited as a diabetic from many alternate/natural medicines and therapies.

I'm not doubting your honesty Rox, but frankly without more detail I for one can't really accept nor address your assertions. Many people believe that their alternative therapies have helped them... belief doesn't constitute viable evidence of efficacy.

 

But perhaps if you were to elaborate we could examine any evidence you wish to put forward.

[Vaelastraz]

I had asthma when I was young, and it didn't go away no matter what my parents tried. Then they tried homeopathic medicine and eventually I had asthma no more.

 

Now was it homeopathic medicine that cured me, or was is just coincidence that it went away at the same time? I don't know, but due to this I have no negative feelings towards alternative medicine.

 

If there is no regular medicine that works for me, I would not hesitate to try out alternative medicine that sounds somewhat reasonable to me.

[Spider AL]

Now was it homeopathic medicine that cured me, or was is just coincidence that it went away at the same time?

I'm not trying to belittle your experiences with homeopathy Vael, and I'm fully aware that this question was rhetorical... but it begs an answer.

 

The answer is: All the evidence would suggest that it was merely coincidence that your asthma improved. Homeopathy is ludicrous. It really is. It's ludicrous. There is literally NO logical reason to believe that it helped you.

 

Did you eat ice-cream at all while you were taking homeopathic remedies? If so, you may as well credit your recovery to the ice-cream as to the watery goodness of the homeopathic "treatment".

 

If there is no regular medicine that works for me, I would not hesitate to try out alternative medicine that sounds somewhat reasonable to me.

Are you suggesting that homeopathy sounds reasonable to you? Things like treating insomnia with unbelievably diluted caffeine sound reasonable? They certainly don't sound reasonable to me.