Welcome back E/O, leagl and Fringey: no one say the name "Penske" 3 times in a row

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

In that case, I return to asking you to define "placebo." Because if something is effective, when you have serious doubts that it will be, and it has been effective on many people for a very long time, that seems to me to be the opposite of "placebo," at least in the way you were using it.


And since the definition, per dictionary.com, is "a substance having no pharmacological effect but given merely to satisfy a patient who supposes it to be a medicine," then yeah -- I'm going with the idea that it's "fooling yourself." I'm not sure what you intended the word to mean.

Well, you seem to be drifting towards an argument that something being effective means it is not a placebo. I just glanced at those studies I found, but I think that the whole point was to put needles in the wrong places to see if that had any effect on the efficacy of the treatment, and those studies suggested that it did not. So, assuming that the acupuncture is supposedly effective because of the correct placement of needles, wouldn't that be an example of a placebo effect and a good working definition? The people with needles in the right place and the people with needles in the wrong place got the same results. Or, with the example of the fertility treatment, the people with the needles in the wrong place had better results.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Or, with the example of the fertility treatment, the people with the needles in the wrong place had better results.

doesn't this mean it isn't a placebo effect, but instead convential acupuncture wisdom is wrong about where to put the needles?

think about it.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

doesn't this mean it isn't a placebo effect, but instead convential acupuncture wisdom is wrong about where to put the needles?

think about it.

I am not going to think about it because I feel certain that doing so will make me dumber.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Well, you seem to be drifting towards an argument that something being effective means it is not a placebo.

A placebo may be effective, but is unlikely to be consistently effective

I just glanced at those studies I found, but I think that the whole point was to put needles in the wrong places to see if that had any effect on the efficacy of the treatment, and those studies suggested that it did not. So, assuming that the acupuncture is supposedly effective because of the correct placement of needles, wouldn't that be an example of a placebo effect and a good working definition? The people with needles in the right place and the people with needles in the wrong place got the same results. Or, with the example of the fertility treatment, the people with the needles in the wrong place had better results.

Those studies would indicate placebo -- no pharmacological effect, but a benefit because people think they are doing something helpful.

Looking to studies is a little different than going on gut feel. I'm don't have any response to the studies because no one is willing to pay me to read them, or research studies that may have different findings.

[Replaced_Texan]

I thought of Sebby when I was listening to this story on the 50th anniversary of Naked Lunch.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Those studies would indicate placebo -- no pharmacological effect, but a benefit because people think they are doing something helpful.

Looking to studies is a little different than going on gut feel. I'm don't have any response to the studies because no one is willing to pay me to read them, or research studies that may have different findings.

Deplorable mania, when something happens, to inquire what.
-- Samuel Beckett

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Deplorable mania, when something happens, to inquire what.
-- Samuel Beckett

I had a similar conversation offline with another poster here just this afternoon. (confidential to Hank: Hi!)

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I had a similar conversation offline with another poster here just this afternoon. (confidential to Hank: Hi!)

transcript please?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

transcript please?

Well . . . I got a bit long-winded. But it boiled down to something like: "Deplorable mania, when something happens, to inquire what."

Plus, we mentioned you!!! True story!!!

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Well . . . I got a bit long-winded. But it boiled down to something like: "Deplorable mania, when something happens, to inquire what."

Plus, we mentioned you!!! True story!!!

Right on! Sounds like a righteously righteous off-line chat-down. Keep on keeping on, my friend.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Well . . . I got a bit long-winded. But it boiled down to something like: "Deplorable mania, when something happens, to inquire what."

Plus, we mentioned you!!! True story!!!

over ice wine...and cheese...feet smelling cheese. I was late because my magellan didn't update for the collapsed bridge.

[dtb]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Well, you seem to be drifting towards an argument that something being effective means it is not a placebo. I just glanced at those studies I found, but I think that the whole point was to put needles in the wrong places to see if that had any effect on the efficacy of the treatment, and those studies suggested that it did not. So, assuming that the acupuncture is supposedly effective because of the correct placement of needles, wouldn't that be an example of a placebo effect and a good working definition? The people with needles in the right place and the people with needles in the wrong place got the same results. Or, with the example of the fertility treatment, the people with the needles in the wrong place had better results.

I read something or other about those studies, too (in my acupuncturist's office, I think...). The article I read concluded that a possible reason for the "efficacy" of acupuncture even when needles were put in the "wrong" places is that the relaxation effect occurs even if the needle is a little off, which reduces stress, aids in healing, whatever.

I can't remember what ailment the study subjects were looking to have treated. Was it headaches?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by dtb

I read something or other about those studies, too (in my acupuncturist's office, I think...). The article I read concluded that a possible reason for the "efficacy" of acupuncture even when needles were put in the "wrong" places is that the relaxation effect occurs even if the needle is a little off, which reduces stress, aids in healing, whatever.

I can't remember what ailment the study subjects were looking to have treated. Was it headaches?

PLF cited one study on headaches, and one on fertility.

But this points to exactly why I am skeptical (for the record, skeptical does not mean absolutely convinced one way or the other), which is that I think one should always be skeptical about a treatment whose mechanism of action can't be explained by anything observable (in other words, talking about unblocking flows of "energy" doesn't cut it). If no one knows why leeches can treat a fevor,* sugar pills can cure cancer, or electroshock therapy can help depression, I happen to think that tells you something.

*I am vaguely aware that there have been some modern applications of leeches that may actually have some modern science behind them.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

If no one knows why leeches can treat a fevor,* sugar pills can cure cancer, or electroshock therapy can help depression, I happen to think that tells you something.

It tells you something, but I don't think it tells you what you think it tells you, which is that the treatment is either ineffective or necessarily reliant on a placebo effect. The history of medicine is full of cases of treaments being effective despite an inability to precisely say why. Just because we do not understand how a treatment works does not mean it must be hocus pocus. Finally, your arguments would be more compelling if you could spell fever correctly.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

It tells you something, but I don't think it tells you what you think it tells you, which is that the treatment is either ineffective or necessarily reliant on a placebo effect. The history of medicine is full of cases of treaments being effective despite an inability to precisely say why. Just because we do not understand how a treatment works does not mean it must be hocus pocus. Finally, your arguments would be more compelling if you could spell fever correctly.

A big fat 2 to all of this.

PLF, you give me fevor.