sinequanon:


I don't think it is clear at all what they are calling the "placebo effect".

A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please"[3][4] is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect. Placebo effect consists of several different effects woven together, and the methods of placebo administration may be as important as the administration itself.[5]

In medical research, placebos are given as control treatments and depend on the use of measured suggestion. Common placebos include inert tablets, vehicle infusions, sham surgery,[6] and other procedures based on false information.[1] However, placebos may also have positive effect on a patient's subjective experience who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[7]

Placebo effects are the subject of scientific research aiming to understand underlying neurobiological mechanisms of action in pain relief, immunosuppression, Parkinson's disease and depression.[8] Brain imaging techniques done by Emeran Mayer, Johanna Jarco and Matt Lieberman showed that[b] placebo can have real, measurable effect on physiological changes in the brain.[/b][9] Some objective physiological changes have been reported, from changes in heart rate and blood pressure to chemical activity in the brain, in cases involving pain, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and some symptoms of Parkinson’s, but in other cases, like asthma, the effect is purely subjective, when the patient reports improvement despite no objective change in the underlying condition.[10]

Placebos are widely used in medical research and medicine,[11] and the placebo effect is a pervasive phenomenon;[11] in fact, it is part of the response to any active medical intervention.[

I can't make sense of this.

What prevented the placebo effect when the drug was tested?

I disagree. Science assumes that what it is calling the placebo effect is totally objective, e.g a deterministic neurological response.

They call a placebo a deception because of the INTENT behind the administration, regardless of the faith of the recipient. This is a point I made earlier. The faith of the recipient is not monitored in clinical trials of "pills" (as you don't like the term "treatments" ).

And, in regards your earlier point of 'administering the pill as placebo', please describe the difference between that and 'administering a pill as a drug'.

(NB you are making a distinction between an object (pill) that can be a placebo or a drug depending on factors which you have not clearly explained.)

A "faith healer" puts healing intent and 'spiritual' energy into the "pill".

The scientist claims that this makes no difference, and does not.

joseph1013:
[color=#550000]WHY CAN'T GOD JUST DEFEAT THE DEVIL

sinequanon:


I don't think it is clear at all what they are calling the "placebo effect".

A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please"[3][4] is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect. Placebo effect consists of several different effects woven together, and the methods of placebo administration may be as important as the administration itself.[5]

In medical research, placebos are given as control treatments and depend on the use of measured suggestion. Common placebos include inert tablets, vehicle infusions, sham surgery,[6] and other procedures based on false information.[1] However, placebos may also have positive effect on a patient's subjective experience who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[7]

Placebo effects are the subject of scientific research aiming to understand underlying neurobiological mechanisms of action in pain relief, immunosuppression, Parkinson's disease and depression.[8] Brain imaging techniques done by Emeran Mayer, Johanna Jarco and Matt Lieberman showed that[b] placebo can have real, measurable effect on physiological changes in the brain.[/b][9] Some objective physiological changes have been reported, from changes in heart rate and blood pressure to chemical activity in the brain, in cases involving pain, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and some symptoms of Parkinson’s, but in other cases, like asthma, the effect is purely subjective, when the patient reports improvement despite no objective change in the underlying condition.[10]

Placebos are widely used in medical research and medicine,[11] and the placebo effect is a pervasive phenomenon;[11] in fact, it is part of the response to any active medical intervention.[

I can't make sense of this.

What prevented the placebo effect when the drug was tested?

I disagree. Science assumes that what it is calling the placebo effect is totally objective, e.g a deterministic neurological response.

They call a placebo a deception because of the INTENT behind the administration, regardless of the faith of the recipient. This is a point I made earlier. The faith of the recipient is not monitored in clinical trials of "pills" (as you don't like the term "treatments" ).

And, in regards your earlier point of 'administering the pill as placebo', please describe the difference between that and 'administering a pill as a drug'.

(NB you are making a distinction between an object (pill) that can be a placebo or a drug depending on factors which you have not clearly explained.)

sinequanon:


I don't think it is clear at all what they are calling the "placebo effect".



I can't make sense of this.

What prevented the placebo effect when the drug was tested?



I disagree. Science assumes that what it is calling the placebo effect is totally objective, e.g a deterministic neurological response.



They call a placebo a deception because of the INTENT behind the administration, regardless of the faith of the recipient. This is a point I made earlier. The faith of the recipient is not monitored in clinical trials of "pills" (as you don't like the term "treatments" ).

And, in regards your earlier point of 'administering the pill as placebo', please describe the difference between that and 'administering a pill as a drug'.

(NB you are making a distinction between an object (pill) that can be a placebo or a drug depending on factors which you have not clearly explained.)



A "faith healer" puts healing intent and 'spiritual' energy into the "pill".

The scientist claims that this makes no difference, and does not.

debosky:


God will, but at the time chosen by God - that's part of God's sovereignty.

I'll summarise what I think your issue is:

Evidence-based search for God. You will never have conclusive 'proof' of God (whatever that proof means to you), in that faith is the necessary element. If your starting point is proof, you'll struggle.

joseph1013:


Tell that to the lady who was gangraped in the presence of her parents. Tell that to the millions of children in war-torned regions dying of starvation. Tell that to the kids who are ravaged with diseases that leave them deformed for life.

You've heard this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil but unable to do so? Then he is not omnipotent. Is God able to prevent evil but unwilling to do so? Then he is malevolent (or at least less than perfectly good). If God is both willing and able to prevent evil then why is there evil in the world?"

philfearon:

You didn't even Add the one in frontpage;The four children who were roasted celebrating his sons so called birthday: Tell that to them too!!

sinequanon:


So, you have made your appeal to emotion.

Now, what is your point?

If you "tell that to them", it is likely that "they" may not accept what you have told "them". Where is the rest of your argument?

philfearon:

There should have been a little more security,don't you think? Afterall,it is the almighty Gods first sons birthday celebration!!

sinequanon:


I am really trying to make sense of your argument. You sound frustrated by something, but do you think you sound rational?

Your point seems to be that on "god's first son's birthday celebration" there should have been more security? Is that it?

Can you explain why?

philfearon:

You do not understand or recognise a joke or sarcasm when you see one,do you?

sinequanon:


I do. But I don't think it replaces an argument.

There is an argument behind your "sarcasm".

Have you tried actually expressing that argument rationally?

Because a lot of people hide behind sarcasm to imply an argument that they cannot actually express.

philfearon:

Oh!
Is not an argument bro....Just the fact that Christianity is a hoax,and I have been vocal about it...
Maybe,that's the argument you think am hiding with sarcasm!!

sinequanon:


Yes.

So I am asking you to describe directly why the story shows that Christianity is a hoax, without hiding behind sarcasm/joke or even sarcasm!!/joke!!.

philfearon:

I didn't make that comment to describe that Christianity is a hoax,I added it to make more joke of what the person I quoted said!!

sinequanon:


So what has it's "just the fact that Christianity is a hoax,and I have been vocal about it" got to do with it?

It all seems very disjointed.

philfearon:

Show me...

sinequanon:


Show you what?

You have called your post "sarcasm", a joke, "just the fact that Christianity is a hoax" and you are being vocal about it. Then you say it isn't about Christianity being a hoax...

What's up?

There has to to be something on your mind making you do this. I am just asking you to explain the link between whatever it is and you post.

philfearon:

I honestly believe you are confusing yourself here bro with some unfound illogicality!!
Do yourself a favor,read up!!

sinequanon:


It's OK, I already have. Your posts are clearly emotional responses -- jokes/sarcasm/exclamation marks -- rather than making any kind of point.

No problem if you can't explain why.

sinequanon:


I don't think it is clear at all what they are calling the "placebo effect".



I can't make sense of this.

What prevented the placebo effect when the drug was tested?



I disagree. Science assumes that what it is calling the placebo effect is totally objective, e.g a deterministic neurological response.



They call a placebo a deception because of the INTENT behind the administration, regardless of the faith of the recipient. This is a point I made earlier. The faith of the recipient is not monitored in clinical trials of "pills" (as you don't like the term "treatments" ).

And, in regards your earlier point of 'administering the pill as placebo', please describe the difference between that and 'administering a pill as a drug'.

(NB you are making a distinction between an object (pill) that can be a placebo or a drug depending on factors which you have not clearly explained.)



A "faith healer" puts healing intent and 'spiritual' energy into the "pill".

The scientist claims that this makes no difference, and does not.

PastorAIO:
What part of it isn't clear to you?

sinequanon:


Pastor, we have discussed this, and you seemed to dismiss it. The definitions are at best circular, imo.

Look at the wiki definition you pasted.

First of all, simply swapping in the word, "medically" does not create a definition. It only transfers the question to, "what makes a treatment medical?" The whole point of the original question is to explain the difference between a medicine and a placebo.

It goes on to say that the intent is to DECEIVE the recipient.

In the next paragraph they refer to a situation where the recipient KNOWS that there is no active drug in the given treatment. Therefore, there is no deception, yet they are calling it a placebo. This contradicts the earlier definition.

That placebos are used in medicine is not in contention. Note that the article combined medical research with medicine, and was therefore able to add the qualification "widely". This is deceptive. The wide usage is in medical research.

I will return to your later points.

PastorAIO:
I'll try again.... A drug that is known in clinical studies to be ineffective can be administered as a placebo and there will be an improvement in the patient.

PastorAIO:
I think we have a different understanding of what is subjective and what is objective.

The man that is hallucinating and seeing flying elephants does so due to 'deterministic neurological responses'. Would you therefore say that the flying elephants were objective.

PastorAIO:
Placebo IS subjective, and calling it a deception puts a kinda dark slant on it

PastorAIO:
For me subjective is something that only happens in the mind of a person.

PastorAIO:
But more interestingly, you seem to be itching to call or identify what science 'is calling the placebo effect' as something else. What do you think is really going on and why is Science wrong in calling it the placebo effect?

PastorAIO:
To be honest with you, I've even forgotten what we are talking about. What is the bone of contention?

Are we saying that the definition of what is medical is wrong?

what is wrong with talking about medical research and medicine together? How is that a deception?

sinequanon:


I think you were saying that a babalawo does science, and you asked me to identify an essential difference between the treatment administered by a medical scientist and a babalawo.

Specifically, you asked what it is that they DO differently.

I came up with the importance of faith in the babalawo's or faith healer's treatment -- faith on both the healer and patient's side.

e.g a faith healer may pray over his "medicine" (and it is important that the patient is receptive to the prayer). A medical scientist will not.

I am not saying that the definition of what is medical is wrong. I am asking you to give a definition that distinguishes it from placebo.

So far, when I ask about a placebo, you refer to the non-medical aspect of a treatment, and when I ask about medicine, you tell me it is the bit with the placebo stripped out.

That is circular. You have defined neither term.

Finally, we are talking about use of faith/placebo etc. as direct instruments of cure, not just for the purposes isolating something called a "drug". In research, placebos are widely used, but they are used mainly as controls, not as instruments of cure. So it is a bit deceptive to boost the claimed usage of placebos in medical practice by conflating it with its wide usage in medical research.

PastorAIO:
Yes, it is used in research, but you don't seem to believe that it is used in medical practice too. Short of finding a doctor to admit that on candid camera I don't know how I can help you. It is not generally admitted because that would defeat the purpose. That would be like a herbalist admitting that chanting mumbo jumbo on his concoctions has no real effect.

I've got a funny anecdote to share with you. Back in the day I was jisting with my Dad and we were talking about his hometown. He told me that our people like to catch winch, we are very expert at catching winches. He then told me the process. We have a potion that we make and we give the accused, it is said that anybody that drinks the potion if they are a winch they will surely drop dead on that spot.
This potion never failed to kill many many winches.
My old man then told me that years later when oyinbo people came and they tested the potion for active ingredients it was found that the potion was pure and unadulterated poison. ANYBODY, winch or no winch, if you drink the potion you will die.
We had a laugh over it.

I for one have gone quite a way to befriend babalawos and traditional healers. You cannot make any claims for those people until you make a proper analysis of the herbs they use, and all the other materials. Most of those herbs are effective with or without prayers, let me tell you that now.

PastorAIO:
When Christianity was being spread across africa they used modern medicine to impress the native and then people converted. Tell me, what has modern medicine got to do with christian faith. Would the medicine not have worked without the proselytism? If you understand the link between christianity and medicine, then we might have a better idea of the link between faith healers and their knowledge of herbs.

PastorAIO:
Menh, if we're gonna start defining what modern medicine is we'll have to go into Galen and how the theory of pathogenic causes overthrew the old theories of humours etc. Then also go into modern pharmacology and chemistry and how they operate to find the active ingredients of drugs.
I don't know what you mean by asking me to define medicine in contrast to placebo. I don't have to proof that modern doctors use placebos, I know this from my own experience. Unless you want me to catch one red handed and film it on candid camera and come and show you.

Where did I do this circulare definition.

That wasn't really your original question. Your question was, "what does the babalawo or faith healer DO differently".

Now you are talking about whether what they do differently has any effect. It is a matter of opinion, and there is no scientific study of such effect, particularly as you cannot "objectively" measure faith or intent. Many faith healers believe that their methods are critical to cure. Many faith healers put on an act. I know of both types.

I actually think this is an exaggeration. Western medicine wasn't all that at the time. Recall that Africans beat the Europeans to effective anesthetics, Cesarean Section, and no doubt a whole load of other treatments. I don't think that Western medicine had that much to offer healthy Africans. Perhaps it was unrest, population displacement, hunger etc. that spread the sort of diseases for which Western medicine had been developed.

You have two pills to give to a patient. One you are calling a "placebo" and the other a "drug". According to your own wiki citation BOTH can have an objective effect. So, describe to me how you distinguish the one you are calling a placebo from the one you are calling a drug. Define the difference.

sinequanon:


It is a well-known fact that placebos are used in medical practice. Doctors have admitted to using them and it has been the subject of many ethical reviews. I think you need to read some of the earlier posts again and refresh your memory.

You are also still prevaricating over the effect of a placebo. What do you mean by no "real" effect. Your own citation said the effect of a placebo can be objective.



That wasn't really your original question. Your question was, "what does the babalawo or faith healer DO differently".

Now you are talking about whether what they do differently has any effect. It is a matter of opinion, and there is no scientific study of such effect, particularly as you cannot "objectively" measure faith or intent. Many faith healers believe that their methods are critical to cure. Many faith healers put on an act. I know of both types.



I actually think this is an exaggeration. Western medicine wasn't all that at the time. Recall that Africans beat the Europeans to effective anesthetics, Cesarean Section, and no doubt a whole load of other treatments. I don't think that Western medicine had that much to offer healthy Africans. Perhaps it was unrest, population displacement, hunger etc. that spread the sort of diseases for which Western medicine had been developed.



I think that you are just evading a very simply question. Let me put it this way...

You have two pills to give to a patient. One you are calling a "placebo" and the other a "drug". According to your own wiki citation BOTH can have an objective effect. So, describe to me how you distinguish the one you are calling a placebo from the one you are calling a drug. Define the difference.

I am not asking for some long history of medicine.