Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

skeptic.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#161

Post by skrebbel »

TillE wrote: post #84
pixelpoet wrote: post #2

I wish more German doctors would acknowledge what utter quackery homeopathy is. Three separate doctors wanted to prescribe me homeopathy stuff last year, ended up not getting any help at all.

I like the German doctors who offer acupuncture and aromatherapy and such. It's just as nonsensical, but at least it's probably relaxing.

I had hayfever, it got worse every year. The pills worked but make me sleep half the day. After some years of that, my wife forced me to try all the hippie shit that I didn't believe in, and the acupuncture lady simply fixed it. Not reduced symptoms, just entirely gone, after a few treatments every year. It still doesn’t make sense to me. The only explanation I can think of is a placebo but wow placebos kick ass then!

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#162

Post by gwd »

sgerenser wrote: post #120
gwd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that "homeopathic" or "herbal / dietary supplement"?

It’s not actually homeopathic, but for some reason it uses the word “homeopathic” on the packaging (I’ve seen it on multiple brands). Example: https://coldeeze.com/collections/lozenges

Weird! Particularly as searching for "homeopathic" on that page doesn't turn anything up. I guess it's one of those things where it might help and can't hurt: anyone who knows enough to know that "homeopathic" is bogus, can look at the ingredients and determine that it's actually got zinc.

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#163

Post by skrebbel »

vikramkr wrote: post #76
skrebbel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood why this isn’t explored more. It’s like, at some point we discovered the placebo effect, which has got to have been a pretty shocking result, right? I just can’t fathom that the entire scientific community just went “ah, hm, right, placebo. I see. I guess we need to do our random-controlled-trials with a placebo control group now”. Wait, that’s it? Nobody went “wtf woa we can cure a % of people…

Because prescribing a placebo while saying it's a medicine involves lying to the patient, which is controversial when ethical standards usually involve informed consent and a belief in patient autonomy. > I just can’t fathom that the entire scientific community just went “ah, hm, right, placebo. I see. I guess we need to do our random-controlled-trials with a placebo control group now”. Wait, that’s it? see that's be…

You’re talking about the ethics of giving patients placebo medicine. That’s not what I mean.

I mean that I don’t understand why there isn’t more research into how the placebo effect works and whether there’s ways to make it work better. Reading other sections of the wikipedia article you linked, it seems to me that researchers have been stuck at “is the placebo effect even real?” for decades and few try to figure out how it works and why, and whether it can somehow be amplified. The answers to such questions might well influence the ethics discussion but “we really don’t get how it works so better not prescribe placebos” is a very unsatisfying stance to me.

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#165

Post by captn3m0 »

sgerenser wrote: post #29
pixelpoet wrote: post #2

I wish more German doctors would acknowledge what utter quackery homeopathy is. Three separate doctors wanted to prescribe me homeopathy stuff last year, ended up not getting any help at all.

In the U.S., sometimes a medicine is marked as “homeopathic” just to avoid regulation, and actually does contain a real active ingredient. This is the case with zinc lozenges (for colds), which contain an actual therapeutic dose of zinc but are presumably marketed as “homeopathic” since the FDA doesn’t regulate herbal or homeopathic “treatments.” Not sure if anything like that happens in Germany as well though.

this should count as false advertising.

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#166

Post by whamlastxmas »

slibhb wrote: post #123
whamlastxmas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless we want to make people accountable for running their own sophisticated clinical studies for every single product we buy, we should probably have some rules in place around false claims and false advertising.

We have those rules about how homeopathic "medicine" can be labeled. At the end of the day, people are allowed to buy dumb shit. 50% of my local CVS is make-up, which is way more egregious than echinacea root extract.

Yes but it’s clearly not good enough

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#167

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

puzzledobserver wrote: post #152
dmoy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea there is research into it, and you're correct Color matters: placebo colored pills work better than white pills. Delivery mechanism matters: placebo injections work better than pills. Idk about price, packaging, or flavor specifically. But delivery mechanism, color, number of pills, etc I remember from a study.

The 2008 Ignobel Prize in Medicine was awarded for a paper that showed that higher-priced placebos are more effective than lower-priced placebos [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners...

I think it comes from our animistic roots. Magic that calls for the sacrifice of a goat is stronger than magic that calls for the sacrifice of a flower because the former requires more dedication from the caster. It would be the same with money.

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#168

Post by vikramkr »

pdonis wrote: post #145
vikramkr wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a right to buy stuff that works or that you can trust, the point is that for noncontrolled nonpatented substances, nobody can stop you from buying or synthesizing active ingredients for your own use in the US, even if logically you shouldn't be trusted to have the competence to not hurt yourself, or if frankly there should be way way more regulation. You keep bringing up antibiotics but it's the catego…

> You don't have a right to buy stuff that works or that you can trust We're not talking about rights here. You claimed, and I quote, "You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it." I am simply pointing out that that is not true. Whether it should be true as a matter of right is irrelevant to that factual question. > you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or b…

When i said buy whatever you want, i was referring to the ingredient in the drug, which you can buy or make with no issues.

And when i say the prescription not being a barrier, i'm not talking about not needing a prescription to get research grade antibiotics. I'm talking about how needing a prescription to get a non-controlled drug is literally a non-issue because of rampant off label prescribing and online prescription mills.

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#169

Post by plorkyeran »

antisthenes wrote: post #150
strongpigeon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard of a strategy that can help some people challenge their belief for issues like homeopathy or flat earth. The idea is to ask them to rate on a scale of 1-10 the strength of their belief. As in, "how convinced are you on a scale of 1-10 that the earth is flat?". If they give anything less than 10, you then follow up by asking them why that score and why not a higher or lower score as in (if they said e.g., 8…

Here's a better strategy: don't waste time on engaging them on that topic. The best possible outcome is that you waste a ton of your time (and theirs), and convince them that the Earth isn't flat. Did anyone benefit? If we chose to try and convince people about everything they are wrong about, we'd be endlessly debating about every minor thing that's already been established and replicated.

Yes, convincing my family members to take actual medicine rather than rely on homeopathic remedies has benefits.

Re: Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation

#170

Post by plorkyeran »

sgerenser wrote: post #29
pixelpoet wrote: post #2

I wish more German doctors would acknowledge what utter quackery homeopathy is. Three separate doctors wanted to prescribe me homeopathy stuff last year, ended up not getting any help at all.

In the U.S., sometimes a medicine is marked as “homeopathic” just to avoid regulation, and actually does contain a real active ingredient. This is the case with zinc lozenges (for colds), which contain an actual therapeutic dose of zinc but are presumably marketed as “homeopathic” since the FDA doesn’t regulate herbal or homeopathic “treatments.” Not sure if anything like that happens in Germany as well though.

https://www.arnicare.com/about/arnicare-topicals/arnicare-cr... is another example I've seen. The active ingredient is "Arnica montana 1X HPUS 7%", meaning they start at 7% and do a single 10:1 dilution, resulting in .7%. This is a pretty normal strength for a normal non-homeopathic cream but it's pretending to be homeopathic to avoid FDA evaluation.
Post reply on HN