That depends on the illness and the personality of the patient. Some may feel better simply because something is being done to treat them. Some may have a placebo response. Others may feel better about having someone listen to them while they explain their suffering.
How do you measure that? ie: do you have evidence this actually happens?
What conditions have been identified as those that 'work'? Do homeopaths decline treating conditions demonstrated not to 'work'?
I think if this was generally the case, homoeopathy (and other non-active treatments) would have long since disappeared.
That's wishful thinking. The Jeane Dixon Effect applies here, as with many woo subjects. (the willingness to focus on scarce positive results while wilfully ignoring overwhelmingly negative outcomes)
I had a colleague who was using a homeopathic hair restorer. He was constantly telling us about how well it was working. When it became obvious that it wasn't working, he claimed he didn't remember saying it had ever worked. Maybe he believes it, but that's why anecdotes are unacceptable for this type of investigation.
Yes, I'm sure that does happen in some cases. The other outcome is the patient gets better (by them self) and pays for the "care" of a homoeopath.
Hookers are cheaper. And they actually sell what their advertising says they do, which eliminates the 'fraud' element.
Some homoeopaths do this, others do not. I.e. Some homoeopaths consider homoeopathy "complementary", rather than "alternative", to conventional medicine.
I appreciate that, but your claim was that you couldn't understand how homeopathy can be harmful. I don't have any surveys outside of Canada, but a two-year-old survey of NDs who practice homeopathy in BC found that 35% explicitly advise their patients against any form of conventional medicine, including vaccinations.
Of those homeopaths who are not NDs, 68% advise against conventional interventions in general, and 91% agree with the statement, "Vaccines are more likely to harm than benefit the patient," and 83% agreed with the statement, "I advise my patients not to vaccinate their children." 0% agreed with the statement "I advise my patients to vaccinate their children."
It's so prevalent in the profession here, that I would call it a fundamental characteristic. They compare closely to chiropractors in this regard. In a profession where every practitioner appears to have a completely different model of healing (no two homeopaths have prescribed the same nostrum to our standardized patient volunteers), the advice to avoid conventional medicne is pretty much the only constant feature.
I realise this occurs, but in the context of this discussion it is a distraction. Let's just stick to 'pure' sugar pills, water and ethanol.
I don't find it a distraction. It's one of the risks of homeopathy. Most of the big adulteration cases in the US in the last 5 years were homeopathic remedies. (The others were herbal remedies and diet supplements.) They're so disproportionately overrepresented in this category that it deserves attention.
We're not explaining any outcomes, we're explaining how individuals feel while they are ill. Just as some people find comfort in prayer, it would seem some people get comfort from homoeopathy.
That's an outcome: "Do you feel better? yes /no" would be a binary way to record this. There are linear approaches that would be worded like this: "Indicate how well you feel on a scale from one to ten." (compare replies before and after).
I don't see anything in the quoted passage that supports that claim. Here, read this part very closely:
Reductions in pain ratings when administered a placebo with expected analgesic properties have been described and hypothesized to be mediated by the pain-suppressive endogenous opioid system.
"described and hypothesized"... this is not the same as "demonstrated".
The article then goes on to 'explain' something that isn't demonstrated.
Like I said, we get this all the time with quantum explanations for stuff like, for example, remote viewing. It doesn't work, but there is a bucketload of expensive research apparently explaining possible ways it
could have. Quantum mechanics, quantum tunneling, teleporation, &c.
Fung Shui's another. There's a huge pile of essays and studies on quantum tunneling to show how it 'works'. I have a lot of trouble finding out what 'works' means, and there are no studies that show anything that looks like evidence that it 'works'.
In any case, there are certainly studies that 'show' pain-relief from placebo, but most have to be discarded as insufficient: unblinded, noncontrolled, &c.
We're left with those 114 from the Cochrane Review, of which about 30 are measuring pain relief outcomes, of which most show no effect, and those that show effect are a mix of placebo (improvement in pain in the placebo group) and nocebo (worsening of pain in the placebo group).
Ok, I asked the wrong question.
Are you more motivated while taking part in a competition than training and/or do you put more effort into your training the closer you are to taking part in a competition?
Motivated? I don't see much difference in motivation, no. Frankly, I don't see the relationship to homeopathy, and I'm very confused by your questions in this direction.
), particularly with respect to pain reduction or tolerance.
