he keeps saying that. And then he keeps answering me. Beside the point. Larry, what I am saying is that I don't give a shit if it's a placebo effect, a realignment of my yin, or little green footballs -- if it improves my chances of survival by 65%. Now, if you have a life-threatening illness, you may feel free to confine your doctor to remedies whose mechanisms are understood. I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award when the time comes.
Dana On 7/19/05, loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did you kill file Dana? > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:55 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: the mechanism of action is unknown > > > > > > violating kill file here. > > > > google the following (I don't see why I should have to do your > > grunt work here). > > > > real simulator design > > attentional control/placebo design > > placebo response. > > > > Also get a good text on experimental design in Psychology at the > > graduate level. Pedhauzer et al's Design Measurement and Analysis is a > > good example. These books give quite a few ways of assessing these > > effects. > > > > the idea is to present a valid, but bogus design. The problem is that > > people are gullible and will believe almost anything if presented the > > right way. In addition in research, generally people want to cooperate > > and please the researcher. Therefore they can be very good at > > determining the real objective of the study. > > > > There is not indication of anything you mentioned that does not fit > > within a placebo response paradigm. Unless controlled for, for all > > intents and purposes it esentially fits within a space cadet bs sort > > of belief. > > > > > > > > On 7/19/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > All very true. But explain to me how you are going to test the > > effect of the > > > mind on healing in a double-blind study? This isn't something from the > > > National Enquirer we're talking about... this is Lancet. Ergo, > > the science > > > is sound, or they would not have published it. > > > On a slightly different topic there is also a problem with the current > > > paradigm in that drug companies are being relied on for > > research. Based on > > > my adventures in the land of coumadin, I can assure you that a similar > > > effect can be had with either ginko balboa or gingseng. > > However, there is an > > > issue of standardizing the dose, one, and monitoring the very > > considerable > > > side effects. Therefore, people with clotting issues are given > > a substance > > > best known for being a rat poison, rather than a substance best > > known for > > > improving memory, because there is a patent on the former and not the > > > latter. > > > Dana > > > > > > On 7/18/05, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 5:57 PM > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > Subject: the mechanism of action is unknown > > > > > > > > > > A google of the above phrase turns up references to oral > > > > > anticoagulants, interferon, anti-epileptic medication, mood > > > > > stabilizers, and treatments for breast cancer, parkinson's and > > > > > tuberculosis.... > > > > > > > > > > conclusion - just cause it's not understood doesn't mean it's not > > > > > medecine. > > > > > > > > Just because some things that work are not understood doesn't > > mean that > > > > all > > > > things that aren't understood work. ;^) > > > > > > > > I know I'm harping on this but this is the reason for > > double-blind studies > > > > and control groups. People who don't know if their getting the real > > > > medicine are dosed by doctors that don't know if they're > > giving the real > > > > medicine. > > > > > > > > It's to link the results to the proper cause: did the drug do what > its > > > > supposed to do? If there's little difference between the test and > the > > > > control groups then it seems clear that the drug just isn't > > doing much. > > > > > > > > The actual method of action isn't as important. Determining > > that for any > > > > drug can be insanely painstaking as you're hunting down very > specific > > > > bio-chemical effects in a vast system. > > > > > > > > What frustrates me is the blanket being thrown up: because some > things > > > > aren't understood anything is possible. > > > > > > > > Comparing a well-tested, well-defined, double-blind proven > > drug to any of > > > > the ill-tested, loosely-defined therapies out there based > > simply on the > > > > lack > > > > of complete understanding of the former is just unfair. > > > > > > > > Jim Davis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:165466 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
