Question about Memory Storages?

[rppa]

This is a tired old strawman that homeopaths love to ride: Some drugs were banned, so DBPC tests are no good. This is nonsense. DBPC tests are used for finding eficacy of drugs, the extent of those protocols cannot and are not supposed to discover rare side-effects. It is a hard fact of pharmacology, that rare side-effects can only be found in the field.

What Kumar is ignoring is that while some drugs have been found in the field to have undesirable rare side effects, before they go in the field they have verified efficacy.

Homeopathy does not have this claim. And again, Kumar is ignoring the very clear point that has been made: while a certain number of people getting homeopathy feel better, an equal number of people not getting homeopathy feel better. "Efficacy" means it makes a difference whether you get homeopathic treatment or not.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT AND GETTING A PLACEBO, PRECISELY BECAUSE HOMEPATHIC TREATMENT *IS* PLACEBO TREATMENT

 

[Kumar]

What Kumar is ignoring is that while some drugs have been found in the field to have undesirable rare side effects, before they go in the field they have verified efficacy.

What is more impotant, rare side effects or verified efficiacy? If I am not completely wrong, some medicines are banned & discontinued because found in the field to have undesirablerare side effects inspite verified efficacy. It means rare side effects & field studies are more important. Inspite verified efficacy, I am bit worried, why persisting real medicines since long are rare or not there.

Homeopathy does not have this claim. And again, Kumar is ignoring the very clear point that has been made: while a certain number of people getting homeopathy feel better, an equal number of people not getting homeopathy feel better. "Efficacy" means it makes a difference whether you get homeopathic treatment or not.

It can also be possible more or less in all systems, unless medicine/remedy is directly given by GOD(TRs?. It may depend on prescriber's skill, constitution/type/individuality/immunity..etc.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT AND GETTING A PLACEBO, PRECISELY BECAUSE HOMEPATHIC TREATMENT *IS* PLACEBO TREATMENT

I am not sure, whether homeopathy is due to placebo or placebo is due to homeopathy. It can't be absolutely judged in view of individualty...BTW, how much can be got treated just by placebo out of say one lac with all type of problems & how much by real chemical medicines exclusevely & newly researched by modern system?

 

[anonimouse]

What is more impotant, rare side effects or verified efficiacy? If I am not completely wrong, some medicines are banned & discontinued because found in the field to have undesirablerare side effects inspite verified efficacy. It means rare side effects & field studies are more important. Inspite verified efficacy, I am bit worried, why persisting real medicines since long are rare or not there.

Verified efficiacy, because the only way a drug gets licensed in the first place is if a drug is proven effective. The safest drug in the world will never get licensed if it doesn't actually do anything. Except for homeopathic remedies.

Keep in mind that the existence of a rare side effect does not always mean that the drug will end up banned. It may not be the case most of the time. There are plenty of drugs on the market with rare, serious side effects, but the drug remains available because the benefits of the medication outweigh the risk of the side effect.

There are even drugs that have relatively common, nasty sife effects that remain on available. Chemotherapy medications have some nasty side effects (that aren't at all rare) but the benefit of the drugs tend to outweigh the risks. You have something in the neighborhood of a 1 in 1,000 risk of dying from general anesthesia, but the benefit to the patient during surgery far outweighs that risk.

It can also be possible more or less in all systems, unless medicine/remedy is directly given by GOD(TRs?. It may depend on prescriber's skill, constitution/type/individuality/immunity..etc.

There is a difference between a less than 100 percent success rate (i.e., some patients get a remedy and don't respond, which can happen to any medical practitioner) and a 0 percent success rate. What mainstream medicine has on it side is hard evidence that if I take this drug or get this surgery, my chances of improvement are "X" greater than if I don't. This is done through actual scientific study.

Homeopathy has no such evidence, only anecdotes that people got better by using such treatments. As we tell Barb, Sarah, and others - all we want from homeopathy is repeatable proof that homeopathy does more than a placebo. It routinely fails to meet that standard.

I am not sure, whether homeopathy is due to placebo or placebo is due to homeopathy. It can't be absolutely judged in view of individualty...BTW, how much can be got treated just by placebo out of say one lac with all type of problems & how much by real chemical medicines exclusevely & newly researched by modern system?

This is nonsense. Let me say it again:

Show me evidence that homeopathy (in general) is more effective than doing nothing. Pharmaceutical drugs have that evidence behind them.

 

[Kumar]

Verified efficiacy, because the only way a drug gets licensed in the first place is if a drug is proven effective. The safest drug in the world will never get licensed if it doesn't actually do anything. Except for homeopathic remedies.

Why "Except for homeopathic remedies"?

Keep in mind that the existence of a rare side effect does not always mean that the drug will end up banned. It may not be the case most of the time. There are plenty of drugs on the market with rare, serious side effects, but the drug remains available because the benefits of the medication outweigh the risk of the side effect.

Can it be also due to 'no other choice' available of 'not yet dynamically taken or evalued?


There is a difference between a less than 100 percent success rate (i.e., some patients get a remedy and don't respond, which can happen to any medical practitioner) and a 0 percent success rate. What mainstream medicine has on it side is hard evidence that if I take this drug or get this surgery, my chances of improvement are "X" greater than if I don't. This is done through actual scientific study.

Yes, as you prefer, make conventionad & devote most means & capabilties towords any one system, attune people accordingly

Homeopathy has no such evidence, only anecdotes that people got better by using such treatments. As we tell Barb, Sarah, and others - all we want from homeopathy is repeatable proof that homeopathy does more than a placebo. It routinely fails to meet that standard.

Can be pending due to some misses or weaknesses. Mass people are not becoming lesser & it is still alive, vital, may be increasing.



This is nonsense. Let me say it again:

Show me evidence that homeopathy (in general) is more effective than doing nothing. Pharmaceutical drugs have that evidence behind them.

It is on-going process as still vital & much alive, still pending, may be due to some miss & weakness OR considered/attuned as alternative, secondary, complimentary or otherwise-- Pharmaceutical drugs, not.

 

[ilk]

You have something in the neighborhood of a 1 in 1,000 risk of dying from general anesthesia, but the benefit to the patient during surgery far outweighs that risk.

Note to self: Never get surgery.

Are you sure about that figure?

There are a couple of pieces of elective surgery I was hoping to have done at some point in my life (not cosmetic) that I'm pretty sure will require GA. If there is a tenth of a percent chance I could die from the GA then I guess I'll skip it

 

[Rolfe]

Are you sure about that figure?

I don't think it's correct, at least not for human medicine. But ask ThirdTwin. It's his area of expertise.

Rolfe.

 

[rppa]

The safest drug in the world will never get licensed if it doesn't actually do anything. Except for homeopathic remedies.
Why "Except for homeopathic remedies"?

You're asking us why homeopathic remedies can get licensed as "remedies" without proving that they have any efficacy?

We don't know. It is a major complaint against the way regulatory law works, that this is so.

Drugs have to prove they have efficacy before being marketed. Homeopathic remedies do not, and can not.

 

[ilk]

I don't think it's correct, at least not for human medicine. But ask ThirdTwin. It's his area of expertise.

Rolfe.

I'm not too worried anymore. I looked up the electives I was planning to have done (ligament extension for hammer toe) and it is usually done with local.

 

[anonimouse]

Note to self: Never get surgery.

Are you sure about that figure?

There are a couple of pieces of elective surgery I was hoping to have done at some point in my life (not cosmetic) that I'm pretty sure will require GA. If there is a tenth of a percent chance I could die from the GA then I guess I'll skip it

I was way off. I remember a few years ago going in for surgery and I swear that was the figure the anesthesiologist quoted. Looking it up, it's more like 1 in 200,000.

 

[Kumar]

You're asking us why homeopathic remedies can get licensed as "remedies" without proving that they have any efficacy?

We don't know. It is a major complaint against the way regulatory law works, that this is so.

Drugs have to prove they have efficacy before being marketed. Homeopathic remedies do not, and can not.

Is it due to that HRs have least adversities, experianced & observed effects with belief by its community of mass.. public, inspite its science/working is still unclear?

 

[Donks]

Is it due to that HRs have least adversities, experianced & observed effects with belief by its community of mass.. public, inspite its science/working is still unclear?

Nope. In the US it's because some quack in Congress managed to get homeopathy included as "drugs" back in the 30's.

 

[ilk]

I was way off. I remember a few years ago going in for surgery and I swear that was the figure the anesthesiologist quoted. Looking it up, it's more like 1 in 200,000.

Awesome.

(edit: Not a sarcastic comment. I mean "That's very good to know, I'm glad we have that sorted." )

 

[Kumar]

Nope. In the US it's because some quack in Congress managed to get homeopathy included as "drugs" back in the 30's.

You mean quacks are so powerful. How it could persist for so long, thereafter?

 

[Donks]

You mean quacks are so powerful.

Not many, thankfully, or we'd be right back in the middle ages.

How it could persist for so long, thereafter?

My guess, because they don't have any effects. No effects, no direct harm done.

 

[flume]

How it could persist for so long, thereafter?

I think part of the reason is because it was so little used that there was not much reason to try to correct the situation. Now it is coming into fashion again for some people. NOT because it is mass-accepted but because it is a novelty for some people. I don't know how many people use it - my guess is a small percent. (But even a small percent represents a lot of money for some companies, so they would argue against improving the regulations.)

 

[ReFLeX]

I am not sure, whether homeopathy is due to placebo or placebo is due to homeopathy.

The placebo effect has been demonstrated in a number of fields, not just homeopathy. Using sugar pills that are thought to be real remedies (placebos) does yield positive results: this cannot be due to homeopathy.

 

[Kumar]

The placebo effect has been demonstrated in a number of fields, not just homeopathy. Using sugar pills that are thought to be real remedies (placebos) does yield positive results: this cannot be due to homeopathy.

I feel, most of the effects are either by placebo or minimum by this. Initiations/stimulis (weak or strong with weal or strong adversities) just only matters, rest body do by its own mechnisms, immunities, homeostatis etc..

Btw, what is the scope of placebo in all problems?

 

[Rolfe]

Using sugar pills that are thought to be real remedies (placebos) does yield positive results: this cannot be due to homeopathy.

Careful. Kumar believes that the "placebo effect" describes a real, physiological healing effect on significant clinical illness, and saying things like that is likely to reinforce that false belief.

The so-called "placebo effect" is mainly a combination of wishful thinking and coincidental recovery, with a side helping of observer bias (especially in veterinary medicine). Actual effect on the illness is confined to occasional, possible effects attributable to a reduction in stress consequent on believing that someone has the situation under control. It's not going to make any difference to a condition which isn't significantly stress-influenced.

However, Kumar believes that placebo can actually cure things like diabetes, and has in the past expressed a desire only to be treated by this method.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Careful. Kumar believes that the "placebo effect" describes a real, physiological healing effect on significant clinical illness, and saying things like that is likely to reinforce that false belief.

The so-called "placebo effect" is mainly a combination of wishful thinking and coincidental recovery, with a side helping of observer bias (especially in veterinary medicine). Actual effect on the illness is confined to occasional, possible effects attributable to a reduction in stress consequent on believing that someone has the situation under control. It's not going to make any difference to a condition which isn't significantly stress-influenced.

However, Kumar believes that placebo can actually cure things like diabetes, and has in the past expressed a desire only to be treated by this method.

Rolfe.

There is some 'self healing mechnisam' in our bodies. I don't know, intiation (weak or strong with least or strong side effects) comes under so called "placebo" or not? If our thoughts/wishful thinking/homeopathy/TRs or otherwise can do that( initiation of self healing) without adversities & can treat/cure, what is the wrong in 'wishing (not desire as you wrongly interpreted) the same? Just don't put petrol or back-bite on woods.

 

[Rolfe]

There is some 'self healing mechnisam' in our bodies.

Of course there is, you idiot! All healing is at basis, self-healing. A cut never heals on a corpse. All medicine is about getting the best conditions to allow the body to "heal itself".

Unfortunately, with the exception of the stress-related situations I outlined above, placebo makes no difference to any of this.

Rolfe.