Can Disbelief Effect?

[Kumar]

Kumar,

Will you be so kind as to do an experiment? Take several families you know when they are sick with a simple cold. Then in a four member family, for example, give real homeopathy to two of them, and give just sugar to the other two.

Then, keep a record of the results, maybe in terms of the time they are still sick after the sugar/medicine was given.

When you have, say, the result of 20 or more families, tell us your results.

The important thing here is that all those people believe in your methods, so the "disbelief will not effect" oh, one important thing, try to remain with the same attitude always, to not let them get suspicious about if they are getting something else that real homeopathy.

It is not strictly scientific, but I guess it can give you an idea of what we are talking about.

People will still interpret it as placebo or belief effect but will never agree that it was a real effect. Millions of patients taking homeopathic treatments is already an existing result to above.

Finally, I am feeling about homeopathy is that;

1. How energy traces of active substances can be stored in remedies as its information, is still a pending work for science, provided the effect of energy initiation is not just by potentized carriers?

2. Belief, no belief & disbelief can influence real effect of remedies.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Kumar, an honest question. Why do you ask in the forum if you finish having exactly the same conclusion you already had in the first place?

How about the proofs we gave you in order to show that the belief has nothing to do, for example, with the causal efficacy of a vaccine?

 

[Rolfe]

I would like to second that. Kumar, if you have absolutely no intention of changing your belief, or even of laying the slightest attention to anything anyone says that goes contrary to your belief, why do you come here and start these debates in the first place?

You're in the position of a child having asked to have the tooth fairy scientifically explained, and receiving the explanation that it's a charming folk custom designed to make children regard the loss of their milk teeth as a positive event, then simply asserting that you still believe in the literal truth of the tooth fairy.

Why do you even come here?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, an honest question. Why do you ask in the forum if you finish having exactly the same conclusion you already had in the first place?

How about the proofs we gave you in order to show that the belief has nothing to do, for example, with the causal efficacy of a vaccine?

You can understand it by my this posting in Astrology Drivel topic;

Our bad luck is that, we unable to translate, understand, carry forward, add & modify our ancient basic knowledges, on their lines. If we would had respected those, without doubt/skepticism, as we respect our parents, probably & mostly, we would have gained some 'parent's type grace'. Anyway, since, it may interfere HIS system of 'balance', being very specific, essence, much knowledgable & infinite benifiting, most may not entitled to get its grace & understand these deepest & basic knowledges, which are bit indirect in today's language.

These are indirect/indicated indirect or not in our language or we changed its/our languages, which either our previous/ancient people were so intelligent, understandable & dedicated that they were either able to understand it OR it was in their language/understanding. These might had also interpreted in that indirect language, which only few entitled to understand the basics/logics could be able to follow the real meanings---not common ones to maintain HIS purpose. Entitlements are also indicated in ancient sayings for the current age to some specific astrological based people. Most will become entitled, when we will be in good nature's balance. Just calculate when??

It may therefore, my posts are causing confusions as indicative of 'both yesterday & today--may be some tomorrow also. Dr.Sch. while introducing TRS, was one of some entitled person--as could translate & told one most basic & somewhat absolute knowledge/logic/ancient science. Kabir, Tulsidas etc. were some others.

I am not so telling very directly but just indicating indirectly, so causing confusions, as you are unable to follow/translate it in your language either due do today's effect OR due to skepticism, non/dis-believer. Inspite of all those above mentioned aspects, which I understand, I still go, sometimes against HIM or HIS system just for some good which may not be entitled as on today, for which I may get or getting some "adversities". But stll, I am unable to stop inspite is most impractical for me & not desired as per HIS system. May be due to my bas stars/luck. Pls pray for me.

Good wishes. OLD IS GOLD, probably we were having all GOLD in older times, so said accordingly.

Why old wine/whiskey is consider better so costlier? Does some molecular/chemical change occur in these on storing it for long--even in sealed bottles? Why alcohol taken just in mouth but not taken in, is somewhat better? What is its science?

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus! I DON'T believe in Santa Claus!

Your nocebo killed Santa Claus!!!!



You MONSTER!

 

[Rolfe]

Why old wine/whiskey is consider better so costlier? Does some molecular/chemical change occur in these on storing it for long--even in sealed bottles?

Oh for pity's sake! The maturation of whisky is one of the best studied of all the "catering" sciences. And one thing which everybody (except Kumar, obviously) knows is that whisky in sealed glass bottles will be preserved as it is indefinitely, without change. Whisky so stored when new and raw will forever remain new and raw.

Whisky is matured in wooden casks, usually casks which have previously been used to store some other spirit such as sherry. During that time, chemical reactions take place which alter the taste and improve the flavour, with a great deal depending on the source of the casks used.

This is well-known and extremely well-documented. But Kumar doesn't even try to find out about it, just reels in another half-wrong fact to try to support some weird irrational notion that "old is better".

Yes, and ignorance is better than knowledge, and a 386 computer is better than a Pentium 4, and a Ford model T is better than a Mondeo.

Right.....

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Is there a chemical composition differance between new & old whisky?

What is the differance in whisky just taken in mouth & thrown after some time AND ingested? Whether effects are same/better but side effects are not there in first case? I have heard it is being practiced by few people.

 

[Donks]

Rolfe,

Is there a chemical composition differance between new & old whisky?

What is the differance in whisky just taken in mouth & thrown after some time AND ingested? Whether effects are same/better but side effects are not there in first case? I have heard it is being practiced by few people.

You mean if the effects are different from actually drinking the whiskey or simply spitting it out?

 

[Kumar]

You mean if the effects are different from actually drinking the whiskey or simply spitting it out?

No, I previously heard(not sure) that some people in some countries drink just in mouth & don't take alcohol in the stomach? Is it so? Is there any possibility to get alcohol effects(with no adverse effects of taking drink in) by sublingual absorption?

 

[PixyMisa]

Is there a chemical composition differance between new & old whisky?

He just answered that.

What is the differance in whisky just taken in mouth & thrown after some time AND ingested?

Well, if you spit it out, it takes a lot more whisky to get you drunk.

Whether effects are same/better but side effects are not there in first case?

That depends on whether you set it on fire or not.

I have heard it is being practiced by few people.

People take a mouthful of whisky and then spit it out?

Okay, I admit I came close to doing this the first (and last) time I tried it, since it turned out I hate the stuff. But people who do this as a regular thing are clearly nuts. Or professional whisky-tasters, same thing.

 

[Kumar]

He just answered that.

Not yet clear to me.

Well, if you spit it out, it takes a lot more whisky to get you drunk.

That depends on whether you set it on fire or not.

People take a mouthful of whisky and then spit it out?

Okay, I admit I came close to doing this the first (and last) time I tried it, since it turned out I hate the stuff. But people who do this as a regular thing are clearly nuts. Or professional whisky-tasters, same thing.

But will sublingual absorption of alcohol can do satisfaction to alcoholics? Will it be with no/least adverse effects?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure I'm not just repeating what has already been said but from a different perspective here is my take.

It isn't a matter of belief and disbelief, instead I think the real question is, does one lose the benefit, if any exists, of magical thinking.

I have found evidence based thinking to be much more productive than magical thinking. Using the medical examples as have been put forth here consider the following. Research has shown it is magical thinking that vitamin C prevents or decreases the symptoms of an upper respiratory infection. In other words vitamin C does nothing for colds but people continue to believe it does. Research shows hand washing to be the most effective way to prevent an upper respiratory infection.

If I take vitamin C for a cold or to prevent a cold, there is no effect. If I wash my hands more often I acquire cold infections less often. If I wash my hands more often, I am less likely to infect another person. If I wash my hands an take vitamin C there is no additional effect over the hand washing alone.

Given the above example, does the magical thinking the vitamin C helps me actually help me? No. Does not believing in the vitamin C hurt me. No.

The 'disbelief' referred to here isn't 'disbelief', rather it is not adopting magical thinking. There is no harm in rejecting magical thinking here.

There are some situations where magical thinking does have some benefit. In the grief process people often use magical thinking as part of working through the grief. "If only I had been there, I could have prevented it" and various thoughts such as these are often expressed by persons in some grief situations. The person doesn't really act on the magical thinking in the sense of adopting it as true. It is merely a thought process. In this situation there is a big psychological benefit.

Persons who have spinal cord injuries might hold on to the magical belief they will recover. That can have a psychological benefit.

In the same way I might think I am going to magically win the lottery or get even with someone. While such events may never come to pass there can be a psychological benefit to these thoughts. The thoughts can be detrimental if obsessive, but they aren't always obsessive and they do otherwise provide psychological benefits.

I don't know if there have been any studies whether or not believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny is harmful, beneficial or neutral in early childhood. I have fond memories of these holidays but I'm sure the family traditions, presents and treats are a bigger part of those memories than the mythical creatures who supposedly brought the gifts. Early childhood is full of magical thinking. I certainly wouldn't worry it was harmful.

 

[Zep]

Your nocebo killed Santa Claus!!!!



You MONSTER!

Don't worry. He'll be back late October.

 

[Jeff Corey]

[i

But will sublingual absorption of alcohol can do satisfaction to alcoholics? Will it be with no/least adverse effects?

The rate of absorbtion of alcohol by the sublingual epithelial cells is nil.
However, it is primarily taken directly into the bloodstream through the stomach walls. Around the villi.

 

[PixyMisa]

Will it be with no/least adverse effects?

As I said, it depends on whether they set fire to it first.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The rate of absorbtion of alcohol by the sublingual epithelial cells is nil.
However, it is primarily taken directly into the bloodstream through the stomach walls. Around the villi.

I recently read ETOH is absorbed in the mouth. So I guess I should look for better research then?

 

[Kumar]

It isn't a matter of belief and disbelief, instead I think the real question is, does one lose the benefit, if any exists, of magical thinking....

I may just indicate that 'one can also remain skeptic in any research/evidance/DB studies, till it become somewhat absolute. I don't know whether change in digestive pHs are possible by Vitamin C & that change can be related to the effects, if commonly thought.

Zep/Pixy,

Placebo can be 'effect by belief', nocebo-effect by disbelief, what about any technical word for effect by no-belief?

 

[PixyMisa]

Placebo can be 'effect by belief', nocebo-effect by disbelief, what about any technical word for effect by no-belief?

"Nothing".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I may just indicate that 'one can also remain skeptic in any research/evidence/DB studies, till it become somewhat absolute. I don't know whether change in digestive pHs are possible by Vitamin C & that change can be related to the effects, if commonly thought.

I think you are asking could there be a mechanism for vitamin C to affect infection risk/course that hasn't been looked at, and, is it possible not enough research has been done yet.

The research did not look at mechanisms, it looked at outcomes. Multiple studies have been done comparing the end result, # of infections & course of infection, using vitamin C. The evidence is overwhelming that vitamin C has no effect on infections. The original work done by Pauling has never been successfully replicated.

The fact that millions hold on to a belief in vitamin C does not outweigh the scientific research results that vitamin C has no effect. I guess a large percentage of the population so wants a magic pill for a cold virus they are reluctant to pay any attention to overwhelming negative research.

(Don't throw away those vitamins. A very large study has shown the benefit of C but you MUST take it with E in decreasing risk of lots of heart disease.)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Placebo can be 'effect by belief', nocebo-effect by disbelief, what about any technical word for effect by no-belief?

I guess I need to state my original answer here again, with some added enfasis and a question: whats the incomprehensible, unintelligible side of "cause and effect"???:

The so called "placebo effect" is NOT an EFFECT in the sense that it has no causal effectivity, this is, there is no proof at all about someone getting better because of the "placebo effect". Some subjects might report feeling better, but thats a subjective feeling, unrelated to any objective changes in their condition.

Of course the same goes for disbelief in the treatment, someone can doubt with all his heart that a vaccine will not prevent him from being sick, yet, the vaccine will do its work, again and again. In other words will have causal effectivity beyond the claimed "power" of beliefs.