Jul 9, 2025
Оfftopic Community
Оfftopic Community
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
OffTopic Community
Offtopic Forum
Poll: Belief in pseudoscience/paranormal phenomena
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LookItsJay" data-source="post: 3056517" data-attributes="member: 93906"><p>Taoquan... I think you are usually thorough in your research but you last post seems to betray a distanct lack of thoroughness which is a bit disappointing, to highlight some problems:</p><p></p><p></p><p>No it doesn't and this shows a lack of research on your part. In the wikipedia article YOU linked to it not only explains why the 33% figure is now considered to be false, it also explains why the kind of conclusions you have drawn are false.</p><p></p><p>To illustrate:</p><p>"The original 1955 article of Beecher "The Powerful Placebo" claimed a 35% placebo effect in 15 studies. The original article was in 1997 re-analysed and "no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies" used by Beecher"</p><p></p><p>In terms of why your figure would not apply the placebo effect is an 'effect' but it is not necessarily the same effect which would be observed by a legitimate treatment. Say for instance a pill was made which was thought to decrease biliribin level in the bloodstream, the placebo effect is very unlikely to be able to replicate that effect... if you told people that this may make them feel itchy you would however find that some people who were not given the real treatment would report increased itchiness.</p><p></p><p>Or for another example if you pretended to treat 100 patients with breast cancer the placebo effect would not mean that 33 would survive... that's just bad logic. It would mean that a certain percentage would believe the treatment was helping and their body may react in a positive way but the sad fact is that thinking positive is not going to be enough to stop an aggresive cancer. So if a treatment for breast cancer was found to work in 66% of the patients it was trialled on it does not mean that 33% can be attributed to the placebo effect. That's a poor argument that even the wikipedia page dismisses!</p><p></p><p>Next antibiotics... They are not really a "shotgun approach", antibiotics from microbes have few side effects and are highly effective at targeting specific areas. Perhaps your referring to broad-spectrum antibiotics which are used only in specific cases? Again from wikipedia:</p><p></p><p>"Most anti-bacterial antibiotics do not have activity against viruses, fungi, or other microbes."</p><p></p><p>This is not to say that you are not correct about antibiotics potentially damaging the amount of intestinal flora but I fail to see how a tea with anti-bacterial components could not cause the same effect? Unless the concentration is much smaller in which case the effect is also likely to be smaller- despite what homeopathy says it is not true to say that the smaller amount of active ingredient the greater the effect. Wouldn't it be much more accurate to say that you are advocating a shotgun approach by suggesting that your herbal remedy can cover all aspects of the common cold and other related illnesses (given that the common cold is caused by a virus like ninjabelly pointed out)? </p><p></p><p>Anyhow, all of the above is made somewhat irrelevant by the fact that antibiotics are not a treatment for the common cold! Just looking up on wikipedia would have told you that! In fact typing in 'antibiotic common cold treatment' into google brought me up the following information on the first page:</p><p></p><p>Antibiotics do not have any beneficial effect against the common cold. Their use in cases of common cold infection is ineffective and may contribute to antibiotic resistance of bacteria present in the patient's body.</p><p>from Wikipedia</p><p></p><p>Never take antibiotics to treat a cold because antibiotics do not kill viruses. You should use these prescription medicines only if you have a rare bacterial complication, such as sinusitis or ear infections. In addition, you should not use antibiotics “just in case” because they will not prevent bacterial infections.</p><p>from National institute of Health</p><p></p><p>Are antibiotics a suitable treatment for the common cold?</p><p>No. Antibiotics play no role in treating the common cold. Antibiotics only work against illnesses caused by bacteria and colds are caused by viruses. Not only do antibiotics not help, but they can also cause allergic reactions that may be fatal (1:40,000).</p><p>from Medicinenet</p><p></p><p>And I could go on... but I think you get the picture. You have however just highlighted one of the issues I have with alternative medicine i.e. that its pracitioners often criticise modern medicine and promote alternative treatments based on false information.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LookItsJay, post: 3056517, member: 93906"] Taoquan... I think you are usually thorough in your research but you last post seems to betray a distanct lack of thoroughness which is a bit disappointing, to highlight some problems: No it doesn't and this shows a lack of research on your part. In the wikipedia article YOU linked to it not only explains why the 33% figure is now considered to be false, it also explains why the kind of conclusions you have drawn are false. To illustrate: "The original 1955 article of Beecher "The Powerful Placebo" claimed a 35% placebo effect in 15 studies. The original article was in 1997 re-analysed and "no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies" used by Beecher" In terms of why your figure would not apply the placebo effect is an 'effect' but it is not necessarily the same effect which would be observed by a legitimate treatment. Say for instance a pill was made which was thought to decrease biliribin level in the bloodstream, the placebo effect is very unlikely to be able to replicate that effect... if you told people that this may make them feel itchy you would however find that some people who were not given the real treatment would report increased itchiness. Or for another example if you pretended to treat 100 patients with breast cancer the placebo effect would not mean that 33 would survive... that's just bad logic. It would mean that a certain percentage would believe the treatment was helping and their body may react in a positive way but the sad fact is that thinking positive is not going to be enough to stop an aggresive cancer. So if a treatment for breast cancer was found to work in 66% of the patients it was trialled on it does not mean that 33% can be attributed to the placebo effect. That's a poor argument that even the wikipedia page dismisses! Next antibiotics... They are not really a "shotgun approach", antibiotics from microbes have few side effects and are highly effective at targeting specific areas. Perhaps your referring to broad-spectrum antibiotics which are used only in specific cases? Again from wikipedia: "Most anti-bacterial antibiotics do not have activity against viruses, fungi, or other microbes." This is not to say that you are not correct about antibiotics potentially damaging the amount of intestinal flora but I fail to see how a tea with anti-bacterial components could not cause the same effect? Unless the concentration is much smaller in which case the effect is also likely to be smaller- despite what homeopathy says it is not true to say that the smaller amount of active ingredient the greater the effect. Wouldn't it be much more accurate to say that you are advocating a shotgun approach by suggesting that your herbal remedy can cover all aspects of the common cold and other related illnesses (given that the common cold is caused by a virus like ninjabelly pointed out)? Anyhow, all of the above is made somewhat irrelevant by the fact that antibiotics are not a treatment for the common cold! Just looking up on wikipedia would have told you that! In fact typing in 'antibiotic common cold treatment' into google brought me up the following information on the first page: Antibiotics do not have any beneficial effect against the common cold. Their use in cases of common cold infection is ineffective and may contribute to antibiotic resistance of bacteria present in the patient's body. from Wikipedia Never take antibiotics to treat a cold because antibiotics do not kill viruses. You should use these prescription medicines only if you have a rare bacterial complication, such as sinusitis or ear infections. In addition, you should not use antibiotics “just in case” because they will not prevent bacterial infections. from National institute of Health Are antibiotics a suitable treatment for the common cold? No. Antibiotics play no role in treating the common cold. Antibiotics only work against illnesses caused by bacteria and colds are caused by viruses. Not only do antibiotics not help, but they can also cause allergic reactions that may be fatal (1:40,000). from Medicinenet And I could go on... but I think you get the picture. You have however just highlighted one of the issues I have with alternative medicine i.e. that its pracitioners often criticise modern medicine and promote alternative treatments based on false information. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Please enable JavaScript to continue.
Loading…
Post reply
Top