Quote Originally Posted by Miriel View Post
I never denied that there could be a placebo effect. I specifically said that if there was a placebo effect, and that effect was strong enough to result in complete eradication of pain, then I don't see anything wrong with that. If there are methods which can allow your own body to heal itself without the aid of any other medication, I find that pretty cool. It's just another method of healing. You're acting like a placebo effect is somehow ineffectual? Why? If it works, it works. Mind over matter is pretty awesome in my opinion.
You seem to be addressing statements I never made. I never said this stuff couldn't ever bring about a desired result; I merely said they are not effective in the ways they are advertised. I would also argue that it's bad for a unproven, ineffective form of treatment to get government funding... or really to be used at all, just on the off-chance that you might have a placebo reaction.

I think it would be great if different forms of healing and treatment were studied and regulated, but for the longest time (at least in the US) it was illegal to even practice any of this stuff. I mean, it's still illegal today in some states to practice midwifery. Some states let you get a license, but others don't even allow that option. There were huuuge efforts to block the licensing of chiropractors since chiropractics was seen as unscientific and harmful to the public. But nowadays, you can even have a visit to the chiropractor covered in your insurance plan. The initial response to anything outside the mainstream seems to be complete dismissal, which isn't really the right attitude. It's the kind of attitude I think you're sporting.
Wait, what? So it's wrong to be dismissive of claims which have been proven wrong? You are mischaracterizing my statements as an "initial response," when in fact they are made with the weight of overwhelming evidence. Homeopathy and acupuncture have about as much change of being legitimate as evolution being a conspiracy of scientists, or of water curing AIDS. The efficacy of these treatments (or lack thereof) is demonstrably false.

I have health insurance with Kaiser Permanente, I take antibiotics for infections, I go to pharmacies to get prescriptions filled, I don't have any problem with mainstream medicine. But I'm not going to close myself off to other possibilities.
Did I ever say you should? Again, you're mischaracterizing my argument to be "go prescription drugs go! bad everything else!" My argument has been limited to those treatments which have been proven to be based on nothing but pseudo-science.

I think more research done on this stuff is a GOOD thing. I think the best doctor to have would be the kind who has knowledge of more than the very strict set of treatments available in the mainstream. Cancer treatment is a good example of the current battle to introduce more alternative methods to treating cancer and the incredible reluctance of the medical community to entertain any thoughts outside of chemotherapy.
The FDA is a pain in the ass, but there are exceptions for terminal patients to receive non-approved treatment still in the clinical trials phase. But these "non-mainstream" (really, just "new") treatments are still based on actual science.

I get what you're saying, I really do. It's just I personally really don't care if other people think they're being cured by water. I really don't. As long as people aren't being harmed by it, I don't see the point in being all condescending and OH NOES HUMANITY! about it.
rubah pointed out just one possible way these things are bad -- it's analogous a Christian "scientist" telling you to pray over a sick child. Anyway, what's the "harm" in calling a bogus treatment "bogus?" And what about government funding hemeopathic treatments, like in the UK?