SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the take-.00002-and-call-me-in-the-morning dept.
ScienceMag has an article discussing the reevaluation of the entire field of Homeopathy. For starters, the FDA has decided to take a new look at how homeopathic treatment are manufactured.
In a 2-day hearing, the agency invited public input on how it should regulate homeopathy—a traditional healing practice that has been called into question by numerous scientific studies.
The problem is that there isn't any evidence beyond the placebo effect for much of homeopathy:
“By its own definition, homeopathy cannot work,” Michael De Dora, director of public policy at the nonprofit Center for Inquiry’s Washington, D.C., branch, told the panel in his Monday presentation. Several large metastudies, including a recent analysis by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia, have concluded that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than placebos for treating any condition. “We need not spend much time on this,” De Dora said, “as the federal government is well aware of the scientific evidence against homeopathy.”
Yet, largely due to the political maneuvering on the part to U.S. senator and homeopathic physician Royal Copeland, who co-authored the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has regulated homeopathic "medicine" since 1938, largely taking a hands off approach.
But homeopath is now starting to cost big money. Homeopathic treatments generally qualify insurance coverage, including Medicare. Because Obamacare now funds medical premiums for the poor, this is costing the government (and government mandated insurance plans) huge sums of money, and inflating premiums for the rest of us.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:36AM
I have always questioned this about the double blind test. If the tester knows which, but tells a convincing enough lie that the testee does not know which is which, does it make a difference? It seems to me that double-blind says it isn't; but is that just because the test conditions are trying to rule out some kind of subconscious bias on the part of the tester?
I ask this because I believe that most homeopath companies and woo purveyors know for a fact their products are bullshit or at least vastly over-claiming what they think is possible; but the people buying it up are super gullible and are willing to believe just about anything. To me this seems no difference for the placebo effect and the double blind test.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:38AM
I would also love to know why someone modded this "Disagree". Disagree with what? As far as I can tell this is how double blind and placebo are supposed to work. (I always tell myself I am "too smart for the placebo affect to work". Now excuse me while I go pop an ibuprofen for my gout, even though I know it usually does nothing.)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @06:46AM
Accept now, that you will never know, why someone would mod this "disagree". Soylent News is people, and people are irrational, panicky and generally stupid. No doubt, we have touched someones placebo in a way they did not like, suggesting that it is only a placebo. So in disagreeing with the observation that the placebo effect is real, they only affirm the position that the placebo effect is not real. This, they like to think, means that what they think is a real effect is in fact actual efficacy. But unfortunately, just because something is not the placebo effect does not mean that it is a real effect. Poor bastards. Steve Jobs. Donald Trump. MikeeUSA. All to go down in irrationality and plain stupidity that a real elementary education could have saved them from. Sic Transit Mundi, Moron Labia!
(Score: 2) by monster on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:06AM
I don't know why you were modded "Disagree", but I know that the tester not knowing if a subject receives a placebo or the thing is very important because people are really poor at concealing what they know, even if they think they are good at it, and also because people are really good at reading subtle signals in other people's behaviour. Combine both and you get a full can of worms if you don't do real double-blind tests. Even if only a 10% of subjects were conditioned by those, that has a huge effect on the study, even to the point of invalidating its results.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:36PM
I wasn't the one that was modded Disagree, but the reply to my question.
Thanks for answering it though. I had a feeling it would be what you said, so I feel better about not doing double-blind when doing informal testing that is not part of actual research.
Of course, if a test is connected to a product or advertising, I will still be skeptical of the results even if it claims to be double blind. (perhaps especially so, since they have an incentive to cheat)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh