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: 4, Funny) by SubiculumHammer on Friday April 24 2015, @05:49PM
If placebos are often effective in their own right, why can't the market efficiently find the most effective placebo?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday April 24 2015, @06:01PM
Because, as the multi-billion dollar homeopathy industry demonstrates, the market sucks at efficiently doing anything that requires complex domain knowledge, except parting fools and their money.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Friday April 24 2015, @06:48PM
the market sucks
There is not really a 'market' involved in the medical industry. This situation is not Obamacare's fault, although it certainly made it worse. Pretty much all of it is people spending other people's money and it usually takes a blue ribbon committee to even estimate how much anything actually costs. There will be a published price but nobody pays that price.
No, the problem with Homeopathy is that it isn't either medicine or science. By the official definition the closest definition is sympathetic magic. Requiring the taxpayers to pay for magic is just wrong. 1st Amendment wrong. Are we going to pay for faith healers next? Well we basically already are with this bull.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday April 24 2015, @07:11PM
You're an honest-to-god moron, jmoris. Sorry if that seems rude, but homeopathy has jack-all to do with "Obamacare". Which had the following to say about the field: literally not one word.
Not a goddamn thing about alternative medicine or homeopathy. the full text [congress.gov]. It had to do with insurance. And insurance has no mandate to cover homeopathy, which is mostly sold over the counter anyways.
And you're blaming fucking Obama care for the effects of Orrin Hatch's let's not regulate useless medicines act of 1994 [wikipedia.org], for which you can go impale yourself on a spike, you duplicitous, cheerleading bastard,
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday April 24 2015, @07:24PM
Troll nothing. This guy is completely ignorant of the legal details surrounding homeopathy and opens his dumb mouth and spewed that ignorance all over this discussion. I'm gonna call him out about it because bullshit should never go uncontested.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 24 2015, @10:05PM
My word! Quite a lack of civilization in here, methinks. Best to scoot out before the fisticuffs.
Is there no decency in this abhorrent world in which we live? Whatever happened to manners and respect of kinfolk? It's barbaric!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @10:44PM
It's not that you're wrong; it's just that you're a dick about it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:21AM
One can only tolerate so much transparent, partisan, and thinly-veiled racist bullshit and remain polite about it. After about the 100th time, there's no reason to not be a dick to hateful bigots spreading lies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:34AM
I can and have said the same thing about ikanreed.
Bonus: it seems that the entirely veiled mod wars are heating up. Content, cognition, logic, sources, or just plain human decency be damned. In the lead as usual is ikanreed followed by The Mighty Buzzard with jmorris approaching fast. Out of the top three, only one seems to have posts consistently and swiftly downmodded if in disagreement.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:43AM
But wait! Did you not see that the whole kerfuffle has resulted in Eth posting a polite intervention with no racism or profanity!!! Makes it all worth it. And if it can help jmorris stop being such a partisan bigot, that would be nice as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:33AM
He was down modded earlier. Twas reinforcing my point on hushing anyone that does not toe the line. But you are right, maybe progress can be made. If only it affected the third one too, he has been slowly getting more virulent over the last few months.
In any case I am glad they are around. It is hard to have a strong disagreement with someone if they aren't capable of producing value themselves.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:47AM
Yeah, I was a dick about it. You're right. I don't want to apologize because I feel it was deserved, but my feelings aren't the only ones that count. Sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:37AM
What about jmorris and his feelings? And how can progress be made when verbal stones are being thrown?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:30PM
Please consider that this place would be a lot more fun if we could all be civil, even when we disagree. Otherwise we might as well hang up the shingle and go back to Slashdot.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:34PM
Consider it considered.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:43AM
Because, as the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutic industry demonstrates, the market sucks at efficiently doing anything that requires complex domain knowledge, except parting fools and their money.
TFTFY
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday April 24 2015, @06:20PM
Define "most effective". Most effective at "curing" ailments? Or most effective at earning maximum profits for the company selling them?
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday April 24 2015, @09:13PM
"Contains 50% more Placebo ingredients than the nearest competitor!!"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday April 24 2015, @06:38PM
Different ones work best for each person. You need just the right combination of common and rare ingredients, with an appropriate mix of medical jargon, the right price, and a reasonable level of promises of effectiveness for a specific person to believe it'll work. It's different for everyone.
(Score: 1) by CaTfiSh on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:17AM
Somehow I don't think that impresses my elderly cat, but yet a homeopathic preparation seems to reliably cure her urinary tract infections.
(Score: 5, Funny) by gringer on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:22AM
There has actually been quite a bit of research on the most effective placebo. See here for a nice video summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRVCaA5o18 [youtube.com]
or here if you can't be bothered with a 1m introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRVCaA5o18&t=1m05s [youtube.com]
If you're taking it orally, take lots of big expensive branded capsules once a day for the best effect. If you want even more power, use a syringe and combine it with a big ass-science machine.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:36AM
+1
(Score: 3, Funny) by tynin on Saturday April 25 2015, @05:06AM
...combine it with a big ass-science machine.
+1, would lol again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @08:27PM
a big ass-science machine
I see that you have followed the way of the master. [xkcd.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday April 24 2015, @07:46PM
See, I could have been a legit scammer and bilked people with homeopathic medicines. One guy sold "homeopathic soil organisms" to treat anything that's wrong with you. He sold people dirt in a pill! But, no, I went wrong in life. I got an education, learned skills, and worked at a job. And look at where I am now. In a basement, waiting for my pizza rolls to finish cooking. I could have been filthy rich. I could have made a name for myself. Is the only way left to get ahead these days to scam people?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday April 24 2015, @08:33PM
I suspect that the vast majority of the people peddling these "remedies" are "true believers" and make very little money off peddling their wares. Just like pyramid schemes.
Also, since I've posted a comment on your webzone, I expect a pizza roll.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday April 24 2015, @09:13PM
In the US, mountains of homeopathic "medicines" are prescribed by "naturopathic physicians" as TFA mentions.
Some patients eventually figure out that none of these things actually require a prescription, but since the "doctor" visit is covered by most insurance as well as anything they prescribe, they keep going to the naturopath.
TFA also mentions that it has become a big business, and somebody is pocking all that cash.
Incidentally: Dara O'Briain does a hilarious bit on homeopaths, chiropractors etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90h [youtube.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by ah.clem on Saturday April 25 2015, @04:52AM
Old Joke - You know what they call homeopathic medicine that works? Medicine.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:46PM
No, you got it wrong. It goes, "you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine."
Homeopathy is not medicine, and never will be. Ingesting purified water will not cure your ailments.
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Monday April 27 2015, @12:54PM
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday April 24 2015, @10:30PM
We used to call "true believers" by the term "marks"... making money off of scams wouldn't be possible if there weren't dumb people to fall for them.
I'll send you the pizza roll on a floppy disk. You can upload -- download -- it to your computer and put it on your screen saver.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by ah.clem on Saturday April 25 2015, @05:04AM
Way back in the day, there were men's magazines like "Argosy", "Man's World", "His", etc. that, as a kid, I used to read at the barbershop on Saturday mornings. There were always interesting ads to be found in the back pages. One of my favorites that I remember to this day (along with the $40 surplus US Army jeeps packed in cosmoline) was for "Placebo Brand Spurious Spanish Fly - Make Her Crazy With Desire!". It was something like $1.99 (no stamps, please) and shipped from a PO box somewhere in the Midwest, IIRC. Man, what a world.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @08:52PM
Your pizza roll is a scam. What's your email address?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @11:38PM
It's a homeopathic pizza roll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @11:43PM
That has been true since before P.T. Barnham.
(Score: 4, Informative) by wantkitteh on Friday April 24 2015, @07:48PM
Can't talk about investigating alternative medicine without mentioning Tim Minchin's epic poem Storm [youtube.com]
Not to mention something else that's obligatory [xkcd.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Friday April 24 2015, @09:49PM
Is it still the Placebo Effect if it's the caregiver is the one that has convinced themselves the drug is useful?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Disagree) by aristarchus on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:56AM
Is it still the Placebo Effect if it's the caregiver is the one that has convinced themselves the drug is useful?
Yes.
In fact, the caregiver believing is essential. You see, this is why we have double-blind trials of drugs. If we tell the
victimsparticipants whether they are test or control, the placebo effect will kick in. It is a kind of "I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission" thing like HAL had, but not wanting the trial to turn out negative invalidates the trial. So alright, the test subjects will not know what they are getting. The reason for double-blind is the even if the test subjects are not told, if the personnel administering the trial know which is the test and which is control, they will telegraph that to the test subjects in body language and other non-verbal communication, and so their "enthusiasm for the mission" results in a sort of second-hand placebo effect. And the study is invalidated.So, scientific method, double-blind so no one knows what is going on, and that way we can figure out if it actually works. Homeopathy just takes this to the next level? If they are all sugar pills, and nobody knows that, think how much more effective the study will be!!!
(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
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Friday April 24 2015, @10:21PM
Unfortunately, the problem with homeopathic remedies is not limited to their lack of any active substance. Some drug sellers have been selling so-called homeopathic remedies with "low-dilution" strengths. In other words, they have measurable amounts of active ingredients, sometimes dangerous quantities of these ingredients. There was a case of a teething tablets that had dangerous levels of belladonna that were sold as a homeopathic remedy [webmd.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 27 2015, @08:05AM
Homeopathy: Fraud, and Purveyors of Placebos
FTFY.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk