Placebo Effect

[Rolfe]

Is it possible that some mineral or inorganic chemicals can only be found on ash analysis & not otherwise?

No. What Flume is saying is that some combinations of electrolytes may form in an ashed preparation, although the ions were not in that combination in the natural wet state. There are no individual ions present which can't be identified in the wet state. New combinations which may form on ashing are artificial and if anything will be misleading.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

OK, just suggest me any book or internet referance(everything in book can be available on internet to some extent) which can provide me the details as asked by me.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, just suggest me any book or internet referance(everything in book can be available on internet to some extent) which can provide me the details as asked by me.

Corallinus already gave you a couple of references I'm not familiar with, but they may be worth checking out. Unfortunately she didn't give any links.

Yes, books that I would recommend are Elaine N Marieb Human Anatomy and Physiology and also Netter's Atlas of Human Physiology. The Netter will give you diagrams with all the biochemistry included and Marieb is great for good all round and uncomplicated explanations of things. Good diagrams too.

I've posted a link to Amazon for the best biochemistry book I know of, several times already. Biochemistry, by Stryer, Berg and Tymoczko. This has it all, though whether it has the emphasis on electrolytes you're looking for I'm not sure. A physiology book might be better for that aspect.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

"I just want to know the differances between the wet analysis & ash analysis"

Boy.
And I thought I was a reductionist!

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Thanks. I could not find human body's & its differant part's chemical composition based on its ash/dried analysis in compound/salt form previously. I could only get like this& this(intresting). Do you feel that the reffered books will gives these details?[

 

[Rolfe]

I could not find human body's & its differant part's chemical composition based on its ash/dried analysis in compound/salt form previously. Do you feel that the reffered books will gives these details?

Probably not, becasue the whole concept of dried or ashed analyses is archaic, and wholly irrelevant to understanding the real way the body works.

That first reference you quoted might be as good as you'll get.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

How do we judge concentration of differant ions/salts-indirectly, in differant organs or parts of body? Do you know that elemental or ionic composition of differant parts are given in the reffered books?

 

[Rolfe]

Composition of intracellular and extracellular fluids will be listed. These are the two main fluid compartments of the body. However, there is unlikely to be any mention of composition of ash, because this is entirely irrelevent to understanding the physiology and biochemistry of mineral and electrolyte metabolism. See Flume's post above for a good explanation of the reason for this.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

No. When you ash a body part you destroy all the organic material - it turns into CO2 and water. All you are left with is the minerals. All the structure is gone. All the biochemistry is gone, really. All the proteins, all the cell membranes are gone. Any associations of the ions in the ash will not necessarily have anything to do with their associations in the tissue. You might have protein-bound Ca++ and free Cl- in the tissue; in the ash it might be combined as a CaCl2 salt, but this would just be an artifact of the combustion. It would have nothing to do with the ions in the living tissue. Suppose you burned sodium bicarbonate. the bicarbonate would be turned to CO2. The Na+ would remain in the ash, but it might be in the form of NaOH or Na2O. This would be an artifact of the combustion and would say nothing about the role of Na+ in the tissue. All you can tell from analysis of ash is the amount of Na+ or K+ etc. that was in the tissue.

I can't tell what you're asking here. There are a variety of ways of looking at components and changes in the cell membrane, depending on what you are interested in. If you looked at ash there would be nothing left of the membrane at all, since it would have been incinerated.

(I am not a chemist, so if I say anything that's not correct, I hope someone will correct it.)

Rolfe,
The above posting of flume indicate:

1. Organic compounds or structural side of body will be lost when we ash the body. But minerals will be left which may represent most of the functional side of body.

2. Minerals will be found in salt/compound form not in ionic/elemental form on ash analysis.

3. I think these salts can be constitued differantly ( but just similar in every specimen of same part) in differant parts/organs of the body. Then, how EC/IC composition of whole body will resemble with EC/IC of differant parts or tissues.

4. IF differant specimens of differant parts/organs of differant bodies shows just similar minerals/salt composition then it is(salt composition) relevant with that part functions?

5. Tissue salts system is more functional based i.e, by correcting the functional side, structural side will automatically be taken care off.
6. I ,sometimes, doubt if cell membrane & some other so called pure organic structure in body are purely organic & may reflect differantly on ash & normal wet anylysis. It is just as assumption.

 

[Rolfe]

1. Organic compounds or structural side of body will be lost when we ash the body. But minerals will be left which may represent most of the functional side of body.

It's impossible to say that one component of the body is more important than another, in that you're just as dead if you have no calcium, as if you have no lipids or proteins. Nevertheless, to say that the miniral content is "most of the functional side of the body" is completely incorrect, not to mention crazy. You need to find out some of the basics of biochemistry and physiology before you make statements like this.

2. Minerals will be found in salt/compound form not in ionic/elemental form on ash analysis.

Please stop saying "elemental" - as I said before, that refers to the uncharged, metallic form. There is no elemental sodium in the body, wet or ashed, trust me. Also, salts are ionic. What you mean is that on ashing, electrolytes will be associated as salts rather than dissociated in solution. Yes. So what? With the exception of bone, they are dissociated in the body, and the forms in which they associate on ashing may have nothing to do with what is present in the live organism. Nevertheless, they are still the same ions.

3. I think these salts can be constitued differantly ( but just similar in every specimen of same part) in differant parts/organs of the body. Then, how EC/IC composition of whole body will resemble with EC/IC of differant parts or tissues.

While there are major differences between ECF and ICF, leaving bone aside for now, there isn't going to be a lot of difference between most organs.

4. IF differant specimens of differant parts/organs of differant bodies shows just similar minerals/salt composition then it is(salt composition) relevant with that part functions?

This is so simplistic I don't think it's possible to answer it. You need to know about sodium/potassium pumps and calcium channels and the intricate working of the body at the molecular level. Just thinking about a crude ash analysis is virtually meaningless in the context of function.

5. Tissue salts system is more functional based i.e, by correcting the functional side, structural side will automatically be taken care off.

No. Tissue salts system is delusion-based. You are imagining it. There is absolutely nothing that these tiny amounts of common-place substances can do to improve the function of the body. And this is not going to change by going on discussing fanciful and imaginary mechanisms of action.

6. I ,sometimes, doubt if cell membrane & some other so called pure organic structure in body are purely organic & may reflect differantly on ash & normal wet anylysis. It is just as assumption.

Well, when something is well-known, don't assume, go and find out. The cell membrane may be thought of as a lipid bilayer with "icebergs" of protein floating in it. Some of these proteins form channels which can transport hormones or some minerals/electrolytes into or out of the cell, while others transmit information by changing in shape. Ashing it, as Flume said, is going to vaporise most of the content and all of the structure. This and lots more really interesting stuff can be found in the basic science books we keep urging you to read.

Rolfe.

 

[Bowser]

Back to the, ahem, original article...

The article does not state what stage of parkinsons these patients are in. Early stages, fine, placebo may be a consideration. Late stages or severe dementia, I don't see that placebo is so likely to apply. It would be like watching the effect in an animal.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Kumar,

When a body is ashed, it becomes.....ash!

200-years ago it gave a rough guide to the mineral content of the body. That's it. End of story.

If you want to find out minerals do in a live body address yourself to modern physiology texts.


Rolfe: I think we should make the replies to Kumar a Haiku competition from now on.

Made to weep he ashed

his tears, yet still the answer-

Tissue salts don't work

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,BSM, thanks for your contributions. We tried our best to satisfy each other.

Let us come to the topic subject.

We agree that placebo effect is there. It may be a part of all healing systems. It would have been a best system if every disorder or disease could have been treated by this effect as least expensive & no toxic effects. What can be the diseases or disorders which can be safely or with slight non fatal type risks treated with this effect? Can we enhance this placebo effects in anyway, say by deep & specific thoughts, self hypnosis, by taste/sensation but not consumption theory etc.?

 

[Bowser]

"Let us come to the topic subject. We agree that placebo effect is there."

Are you referring back to the parkinson's study? Without knowing the status of the patients, how do you know it is placebo?

 

[Kumar]

No, I am reffering to other possible effects as previously discussed, where body can heal by itself with out any medical aid.

 

[Rolfe]

No, I am reffering to other possible effects as previously discussed, where body can heal by itself with out any medical aid.

Kumar, when the body can heal itself without any medical aid (and this happens a great deal, I have a small cut on my finger now which will heal itself no problem at all) this is fine.

But medicine exists to help the body heal when things are so bad that either the body can't heal itself without help, or left to itself it will take much longer and cause the patient to suffer more.

If you are saying that we should leave things alone when there's no need to intervene, I think we would all agree. If you're saying that an inert substance ("placebo") somehow makes self-healing better, this is entirely wrong. The main effect of a placebo is to make the patient feel psychologically better by believing that he is being helped, while the body goes on healing itself. And this study seemed to show that this effect could be picked up in the brain.

If a substance really does help the body heal itself, it is not inert and not a placebo, it is a medicine.

Remember always that doctors never heal a patient. The body always heals itself. No wound will ever heal on a corpse, no matter how carefully you suture it. Medicine merely seeks to remove or put right whatever is preventing healing from happening, and so let the body get on with it. If nothing needs to be done, then fine, do nothing. However, it's a complete contradiction in terms to talk about doing something to help the body heal, without medical intervention. By very definition, that "something" is a medical intervention.

Rolfe.

 

[Bowser]

"The main effect of a placebo is to make the patient feel psychologically better by believing that he is being helped, while the body goes on healing itself. And this study seemed to show that this effect could be picked up in the brain."

You haven't made the case that these particular patients would have been susceptible to merely a placebo.

 

[Rolfe]

You haven't made the case that these particular patients would have been susceptible to merely a placebo.

I don't see why these patients need to have been "particularly" susceptible to a placebo. I think my understanding of what is probably going on, and what I intended to imply by my previous post, is quite consistent with the researcher's own suggested explanations as given in the New Scientist article.

He suggest two possible explanations. The first is the "cognitive" hypothesis, where the physiological effects are triggered by the patient's expectation of benefits. The second is the classic "conditioning" response. This was discovered in 1889 by the Russian psychologist, Ivan Pavlov, who found conditioning could induce dogs to salivate for food at the sound of a bell. "The context around the therapy could induce such a response," says Benedetti.

Rolfe.

 

[Bowser]

It has to do with the progression of Parkinson's, which can have, for instance, a very debilitating dementia similar to Alzheimer's. At some point experimenting on a Parkinson's patient wouldn't be any different from experimenting on an animal as far as their ability to understand what was happening. The article doesn't give the context so you don't know. Maybe the apomorphine was also a placebo since it had the same effect as the salt solution.

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps it will become clearer when we can see the full paper as published.

Rolfe.