Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
I don't think anyone would dispute that. The placebo effect is mysterious and fascinating.
Luckily for us, we require medical interventions to perform better than placebo.
Is that true in all cases?
I don't think anyone would dispute that. The placebo effect is mysterious and fascinating.
Luckily for us, we require medical interventions to perform better than placebo.
Is that true in all cases?
For medical interventions where we have no existing treatment, it has to perform better than placebo to be licensed by NICE.
Where a treatment already exists, the proposed intervention has to perform better than the best existing treatment to be licensed.
No I mean are there not cases where a placebo has worked as well as medical intervention? They maybe urban legend but I am sure I have read cases of cancer going into remission after homoeopathic treatment.
I'm sure there are a handful of cases where a cancer has gone into remission after a homeopathic treatment. It would be rather presumptuous to conclude that it was the homeopathy that caused it, as occasionally cancers can spontaneously go into remission anyway.
That's why we do multiple large randomised, placebo controlled, double blind studies, and then meta-analyses of those studies, before we can confidently conclude that a treatment is or is not effective.
I would in no way suggest that homoeopathy was the cure but rather the brains of those individuals caused the remission. It may be an ability only a few people have or can access. Like I say just playing Devils Advocate.
Possibly. If so, then it's something we seem unable to detect or identify, and certainly unable to tap or develop for synthesis into effective treatments. So an interesting curiosity, but not very helpful (at the moment - who knows what we'll find out in the next 20 years).
I am more inclined to believe that cancers can very very occasionally just spontaneously go into remission, and there is no particular reason for that that we can find at the moment
I am in an IT background, and whilst having done some colour physics at a previous IT employer I can quite clearly state that an IT background is not akin to science, nor would one say it was their bread and butter. Whilst a research scientist, bearing in mind I have my licentiateship, the use of scientific methodology, evidence and proof was far different.
So Computer Science is not Science? OK then.