Research into homeopathy: data falsification, fabrication and manipulation • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by pdonis » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 3:57 AM UTC

vikramkr wrote: post #143

pdonis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this isn't advice to take them - they aren't regulated and so you shouldn't trust them lol they're for research use only for a reason In other words, no, I can't buy anything I want unless the DEA has a problem with it. I can buy stuff that doesn't work or that I can't trust, but I can't buy antibiotics (or many other things I might want) that I can trust. Which of course concedes my point.

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…

> it's the category of drugs with the most widespread use (animal agriculture) with one of the strongest cases for being drastically under-regulated

To call this area "under-regulated" is not accurate: the whole food production chain in the US, with all of its dysfunctionality, is a product of decades of regulation and government interference and mismanagement. The best way to stop antibiotic use with animals is for people to stop eating meat and other products from those animals, and if anything is going to facilitate that, it's going to be the market, which is already providing plenty of products in grocery stores that are from animals raised with no antibiotics, and will provide more the more people choose to buy them, as I do.

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

#152

Post by puzzledobserver » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 4:06 AM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #118

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any research along these lines, but I suspect that all placebos are not equally effective. It's a psychological effect, so things like price or flavor or packaging likely affect its strength.

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...

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

#153

Post by bryant » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 4:17 AM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #101

bryant wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could probably still do it. It'd just have to be a distillation system that's not explicitly branded as a countertop water distiller but still describes its function and effects as such. You see plenty of examples of this on the market already as-is in different sectors. A part for a Ford GT could cost 500 bucks where the same part for a Ford Fiesta could cost 50.

Good point but not such a great great exsmple of spurious cost differences. The Ford GT is a top race-spec car putting out 660 horsepower and capable of speeds around 220 mph, while the econocar Fiesta tops out at 112 HP and would be lucky to see 100mph with a tailwind. Unless the part is something like a window-opener switch, yoi WANT that part to have all the extra engineering, higher spec materials, tighter-tolera…

I was referring to common elements like window switches, yes. I figured it would've gone without saying since the other components are binned based on manufacturing quality.

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

#154

Post by Sirizarry » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 5:06 AM UTC

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.

I dunno man there are plenty of smart people that have simply been misled or are in circumstances where they’re more easily prone to fall into these kinds of traps. Nice and good people too. It feels cruel to not spend at least a little time helping them help themselves. At the end of the day of course it’s your decision what you wanna waste time on but it’s I find it’s a worthwhile pursuit for those I’ve bonded with

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

#155

Post by gumby » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 5:20 AM UTC

AnnikaL wrote: post #148

gumby wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it supposed to be my fault, or the governor's fault that they chose to live in Flint and not Palo Alto or the Upper East Side of Manhattan? If you make bad choices, take responsibility and bear the consequences. That's the American Way. It ain't my problem, Jack!

What will you say to people in Palo Alto who experience earthquakes, or Manhattanites who experience flooding?

Clearly they did not plan ahead.

If they really worry about these issues they can simply move or turn to the private sector. If the private sector can’t help them, that’s clearly due to the jackboot of unelected bureaucrats — congress needs to juice the supply side by cutting taxes on the job creators.

(BTW there’s an earthquake fault running right down Water St in lower Manhattan!)

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

#156

Post by gumby » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 5:21 AM UTC

cbsmith wrote: post #138

gumby wrote: post #10

If homeopathy "theory" says that the water retains an "imprint" of other chemicals it encountered, clearly the tap water coming into your house is horribly contaminated with the fish pee, ozone (from UV purification treatment) and the pipes themselves. I briefly considered selling a device that would "reverse" those consequences so the water from your tap would be homeopathically neutralized. But it just seemed uneth…

You say that like fish pee isn't good for you.

You should put it in capsules and sell them through Whole Foods.

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

#157

Post by gumby » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 5:22 AM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #135

gumby wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have guessed. Of course the water picks up the imprint of the filters. My device would use magnets! Moving magnets so it doesn't bias the water.

Do not ever try putting something like “magnet water purifier” in Google, then. Or, if your results make too much sense, just add some bullshit like “crystals”. You’d be disappointed to learn that about 54,017 charlatans beat you to the punch. Some of them even got some articles in something that looks like a peer-reviewed journal…

Sheesh, there is probably no hope for humanity.

I vote for the rationalist robots.

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

#158

Post by zaik » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 5:54 AM UTC

worik wrote: post #128

o11c wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the target market. There are some medicines that do actually work, but they're advertised toward the people who believe in homeopathy, so they are labeled as homeopathic.

> There are some medicines that do actually work, but they're advertised toward the people who believe in homeopathy, so they are labeled as homeopathic. Really? That is a claim that could be backed with an example

Someone gives an example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40886084

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

#159

Post by exe34 » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 7:34 AM UTC

munchler wrote: post #35

exe34 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

prescribe distilled water.

Right, but how to do this while preserving the placebo effect? If the patient knows it’s “just” water, the effect is lost. Some sort of deliberate deception seems to be necessary, which raises ethical problems.

I've found placebos work really well on me even when I know they're placebos.

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

#160

Post by skrebbel » Sat, Jul 06, 2024, 8:25 AM UTC

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.

If it’s someone you love it might not be a waste of time, esp if you can pull it off in a constructive way that makes both people feel respected and appreciated regardless of where the discussion goes.