To ask whether or not people here believe in homeopathy?

[DaisyLovesMetronidazole]

I don't at all.

However, I'm not out for a bunfight!

Just curious, as was surprised by the response of a certain group to this question today.

UQD - We pay around £4,000 per annum per person in this country to provide healthcare on the NHS. It many be free at the point of delivery but it's not free and as one of my earlier posts pointed out, 11% of the treatments on the NHS have clinical evidence to show that they are effective.

There are objective long term trials with controls to show that Homeopathy is effective but they are however largely ignored. Medical trials, publications and peer reviews are supported by drug companies and I am not being conspiracy theorist.

I accept your point about personal testimony and it's validity, but to dismiss the opinion of those on here who have said "I have tried Homeopathy and it worked" and agree with those on here who "think" it's all a load of bollocks based on secondhand information is somewhat blinkered.

You can argue that someone does a few things when they feel ill and that, as a result of this, they might, subjectively, start to "feel" a bit better. You have a cold, you feel a bit down, you go for a walk in the sunlight and the fresh air and you might feel more like facing the world. That's not rocket science.

If I feel poorly one day and I do the following things:

-eat chocolate
-walk around the house widdershins
-watch my football team win 3-0
-go for a walk in the sun
-comb my hair in a certain direction
-have a homeopathic remedy
-watch my favourite TV show
-have a nice cup of tea and snuggle in my duvet
-bang my elbow three times on the door
-eviscerate some poorly-conceived argument on a popular parenting forum

...all in the belief that these things will make me feel better, then I might well feel better. Or I might not. None of these things is an actual medical remedy. The point is that, if I were to pick one of the "good things" I have done and believe in its exclusive powers of healing, that would be a false correlation - falsely linking my improved feelings with a randomly-chosen action from the list above.

I could be feeling better because of something I was totally unaware of, or had been aware of and had forgotten (e.g. I could have had a lot of fruit juice for breakfast and not remembered, and the vitamin C could be boosting my immune system).

Himalaya: it is true. Do you not understand that?

With placebo there is a cause (belief) and an effect (improvement).

Some people have claimed that the mechanism by which placebo works is not complex at all, when in fact it's little understood.

Some people claim that placebo has to do only with perception of symptoms.

However it is clear that the mind, including certain states of belief apparently, can have real phsyiological effects. This is not denied unless you are denying this?

There is the cause and effect. Do you seriously want to put it down to coincidence because we don't yet understand the details of the mechanism?

I'm really puzzled by this. How can you not understand that there is a cause (belief) and an effect (improvement)? It's so simple.

When you've got a cause and an effect, it's not a coincidence.

Unless you are denying that placebo exists? Are you saying that placebo is just coincidence?

Crumbs you disagree with a lot of people and a lot of evidence. This is so simple. Why don't you understand?

"With placebo there is a cause (belief) and an effect (improvement)"

Totally based on a false premise, as I explained above. There is evidence that these two things both exist independently, but no evidence of direct causal link.

You keep trying to claim I "don't understand" you, when I moved on from understanding long ago and am now trying to present an alternative point of view.

UQD you certainly seem to be denying the existence of placebo at all.

Placebo is by definition, a matter of cause and effect. By definition.

No, UQD you didn't explain you are quite wrong. Your examples are rubbish and boring.

Are you denying that placebo exists at all - that a state of mind or belief can have no physiological effect on the body?

This is what you seem to be saying.

If so you are denying the existence of placebo.

I would certainly agree you've moved on from understanding. Given up on it, I'd say.

"I accept your point about personal testimony and it's validity, but to dismiss the opinion of those on here who have said "I have tried Homeopathy and it worked" and agree with those on here who "think" it's all a load of bollocks based on secondhand information is somewhat blinkered."

Ho but you are right: my experience (pro) is anecdote, her experience (anti) is evidence.

Himalaya come on == UQD in need of a little help here

If you think the cause is belief in a particular key action's effectiveness, you need to know what the belief is actually in, and be able to isolate it from other potential candidates for the status of "key action". Look again at my list above. If I thought all those things "did me good", and then my health improved, how should I know which to ascribe the link to?

You seem to think it is very easy to isolate what the two separate elements (the belief and the improvement) actually are, to quantify and label them and then to show a direct causal link. This leap in logic is entertaining, but flawed.

Gooseberry, dear. It's the last recourse of the floundering keyboard-warrior to say "you don't agree with me because you don't understand me." I understand you. Believe me, it's fine. Don't worry. Your "argument" is really not so sophisticated.

Who's floundering? Who's a keyboard warrior? you??? bizarre

I've been insisting it's not easy at all to understand and isolate this mechanism. But that doesn't mean you can call it coincidence.

Seriously, are you calling it coincidence? Are you saying placebo effect is coincidence?

UQD -- if you talk about false correlation you are talking about disconnect and coincidence.

Placebo is the effect that a condition of mind or state of belief can have on the body: not just in symptom perception but real, physiological change.

Do you see the difference?

"If you think the cause is belief in a particular key action's effectiveness, you need to know what the belief is actually in"

And.. why would the homeopathic user not know that he believed in the little pill? How would that be hidden from him?

It's just.. blither. You're blithering.

I am saying exactly what I said above - that you don't know which of the many things you might do in one day which are positive (as listed) is the one which leads to the state of psychological well-being. I am NOT saying it is coincidence - I am saying you can't prove the link. That your automatic description of the belief as "cause" and the improvement as "effect" is a little glib. Subtly different.

You really aren't reading what I am actually saying.

Placebo is when the belief creates the improvement. It's what you believe that matters. Eating chocolate doesn't matter or any of your other rubbish and boring examples. It's what you believe that matters.

You are assuming there is a cause for the improvement quite apart from the state of mind.

So, you're denying placebo or you don't understand it. One or the other.

"Your automatic description of the belief as cause"

Well yes. That's what placebo is. Hello? Anyone home?

Oh go and google placebo. This is ridiculous. How can you not know this.

Goose - Refreshing to have a polite discussion with someone who doesn't hold the same opinions as me! Off to sit in the sun.

Gooseberry, UQD

Homeopathy is neither 100% regression to the mean nor 100% 'effective placebo'.

In everyday useage to say something only works by 'placebo' includes both regression to the mean (people getting better anyway) and the true and wierd placebo effect where being told that something will make you better leads to some change in the body.

Homeopathy 'works' both ways. As I said, homeopathists are not honest enough to study this to work out how much of the effect is regression to the mean and how much is wierd-placebo.

As Suki said, real clinical trials aim to identify treatments that are significantly better than placebo (both regression to the mean + wierd placebo effects combined) and than existing treaments, so it is generally assumed that it is not necessary to tease out the two kinds of placebo effects.

Someone way up the thread linked to the Ben Goldacre article on placebo studies (not because it is a 'bible', whatever that may mean, but because it is interesting) which talks about how the placebo effects of a drug can change over time as perceptions of its value changes etc... It is interesting but seems to be getting more into the realms of drug marketing - i.e. £3 paracetomol in a shiny packet makes you feel better than 16p paracetomol despite the same ingredients 'because you're worth it'.

and once more I realise what a tedious waste of time this can be

I'm going out

"You are assuming there is a cause for the improvement quite apart from the state of mind." No. Go back and look again at what I said. (This is really tedious.) I am saying that there is a cause for the improvement, if it's there, which may be a combination of factors, or down to a factor you haven't considered (such as my fruit juice in the above example).

If we're talking everyday usage I'll certainly claim evidence thanks. Given that the emphasis has been endlessly on scientific terms it's a bit double-sided to say, oh, but we're just using it in the everyday usage sense now.

I'll also claim Ben Goldacre, who spends a lot of time on my side of the argument as regards conventional medicine.

Anyway Himalaya, tell UQD what placebo is. And you can withdraw your claim that it's anything to do with false correlation while you're at it.

Anecdote does not equal data.