Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Placebo (Read 5121 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Placebo

I nearly posted this in off-topic, because it has nothing to do with audio...

...but it does have a lot to do with so many of the things that we discuss here.


There was a programme on BBC 2 (UK TV) last night about Homeopathy.

They looked at the process, which involves diluting something to 1 part in so many billion before giving it as a treatment.

They looked at the scientific evidence against it: statistically, there's almost zero chance of there being a signle molecule of the "active" substance in each prescribed dose at that dilution.

They also looked at the scientific evidence for homeopathy. This is the really interesting part. Some of it reminded me of the story of N-rays. Several research groups had shown that the homeopathic remedy actually had a measurable effect. A paper was even published in Nature.

After publishing the paper, Nature visited the first research group, and observed a trial. Researchers added the homeopathic remedy to samples of human blood, and then counted the number of blood cells that changed in each sample. The control group was pure water, added to other samples of human blood. Again, the researchers counted the number of blood cells that changed in each sample. Under the scrutiny of several sceptics from Nature, the same result was produced: the homeopathic remedy had a significant effect compared to water alone - even though, chemically, it too was just water due to the billion times dilution. They called the effect "The memory of water" because the water somehow appeared to remember the chemical that it once contained.


So, the people from Nature asked them to do the experiment again. Only, this time, it would be done "blind". No one from the research group would know, until the end of the experiment, whether each sample was control or homeopathic remedy. The people from Nature kept a note of which was which, and stuck the envelope with this information to the ceiling of the lab.

The result of this blind test? The homeopathic remedy had absolutley no effect what-so-ever!


The programme went on to show other similar tests. One used a computer to count the blood cells (to remove observer bias), and this yielded a positive result. Finally, James Randi, a magician and skeptic, offered 1 million dollars to anyone who could prove that the homeopathic remedy had an effect, in a rigorous scientific investigation.

The programme tracked the efforts of the BBC team in trying to do just that.


It was fascinating, and it reminded me so much of blind and sighted listening tests, and why we're so right to only trust blind tests! Obviously placeabo was discussed, but seeing it in practice was amazing.

The programme currently has a website at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/

It'll probably only be on line for a week, so take a look. The topics discussed are very relevant to sighted listening tests, and are interesting anyway! Let the subjectivists squirm, and the ABXers say "I told you so!"


Cheers,
David.

Placebo

Reply #1 –
yup...


good post..

(blind trust.. is addictive.. they say..  )



Placebo

Reply #2 –
Cool, it was interesting until I read the name "Randi".

I don't believe (or not believe  ) in Homeopathy, but I certainly don't believe in the "sceptic" Randi  . IMO, he's just a smart marketing man and less a scientist or anything similar, probably that's the reason he calls himself "magician". If I remember a certain discussion well, he was quite bashed by scientific circles for wrong (faked?) tests. But, this could be a case of me adjust the reality to proving how Randi is biased. LOL

I recently had a private discussion about the whole "sceptic" stuff (Randi is always mentioned, wonder if his picture will be put under sceptic in Brittanica), and my conclusion is that everyone chooses what to believe in and finds pro's for it (the cons are, somehow, forgotten along the way). Talk about adjusting reality...

BTW, could anyone point me in wich category would MP3Gain fall?

Cheers,

Mijo "I will pay Randi a million dollars if he prooves that he exists  " Rebic
"Stop making me older, start making me new"

Placebo

Reply #3 –
Quote
I certainly don't believe in the "sceptic" Randi  . IMO, he's just a smart marketing man and less a scientist or anything similar, probably that's the reason he calls himself "magician".

There was no indication that he was a scientist at all - just that he was good at debunking myths. It was obvious he was a showman - even an actor. I don't recall hearing of him before this programme, though I guess he's quite famous.


Quote
BTW, could anyone point me in wich category would MP3Gain fall?


Well, when I was developing Replay Gain, I took some accepted psychoacoustic principles, diluted them down to 1 part in 100, took the result, diluted that...

Cheers,
David.

Placebo

Reply #4 –
Hello.

-Randi

Well, I don't think he's good at anything but marketing, but that's just my opinion. For debunking myths I would rather have some scientific test, altough I always laugh when someone mentiones the word "objective"...

-Well, when I was developing Replay Gain, I took some accepted psychoacoustic principles, diluted them down to 1 part in 100, took the result, diluted that...

Erm, when I re-read my posting I've came to conclusion that my last comment was, erm, completly different what I wanted to say. *cough* I am trying to add MP3Gain to a appropriate category in a small list of freeware programs, and wanted to mention that "BTW" (this categorising make me crazy). Sorry, for my stupidity...

And, I am an Replay Gain fan. It has made my PC listening experience much better, thanks to you, the developers like Glen Sawyer and to the nice members who pointed me to Replay Gain when I just registered on HA.

Eh, thanks alot and bye.

Cheers,

Mijo.
"Stop making me older, start making me new"

Placebo

Reply #5 –
I saw it last night and the same thought came to me, i have not had the time to make a post, and probably wouldn't have done anyway  Yours was much better than mine would have been as well!

Do you know if it is going to be reepeated on any other the other BBC channels at any time?

Cheers,

Kristian

Placebo

Reply #6 –
James Randi (aka "The Amazing Randi") is a professional magician, although I don't think that he works as a magician much any more.  He first became well-known for debunking persons making claims of paranormal abilities (such as Uri Geller, for example) by showing how their feats can be reproduced using simple magic tricks.

He isn't a scientist, but he has often participated in studies of psychics and paranormal claimants since, as a magician, he can pick up a lot of tricks that scientists can't recognize.  A scientist expects nature not to lie in an experiment (although, as has been said, nature "sometimes tells the truth with intention to deceive" -- or so it seems).  This can be a handicap in studying psychics etc., since scientists aren't trained to set up protocols specifically to detect trickery.  A good magician knows what tricks are possible, and has a better chance of thwarting them.

Randi was one of the founding members of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which publishes a magazine called the Skeptical Inquirer.  Their website is here.

Placebo

Reply #7 –
Great programme.

I'd heard of Randi before, partly in relation to Homeopathy and his £1m prize, and again in a Uri Geller documentary, where when Geller went to the USA for his first US TV appearance he guessed which tricks Geller would use to produce the illusion of psychic ability and made adjustments to the experiments to debunk them (e.g. a ball hidden under one of many cups was glued down to prevent him from wobbling that cup surreptitiously to reveal its location).

Geller looked pathetic and had a deservedly poor reputation in the USA. The BBC's first programme with Geller on it had less sceptical presenters, and his party tricks went on to make him a lot of money in Britain and elsewhere.

Recently New Scientist mentioned a good spot by the Annals of Improbable Research (who award the IgNobel prize): A US patent application (not granted as yet) for a gameshow in which couples compete to win custody of a child. I kid you not! The "Inventor" a certain Uri Geller of Berkshire (GB).

I think Horizon is usually or often co-produced with an American programme (presumably a different narrator is used), indicated in the end credits.

Many programme details are stored in the archives:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/archives.shtml

The programme is repeated.
From the "About Horizon page":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/about.shtml
Quote
Transmission times - BBC One and BBC Two

Horizon is shown on BBC Two weekly during the series run; usually at 9pm on Thursdays.

The current series (spring 2003) is being reshown with sign language interpretation in BBC One's Sign Zone. These repeats are usually in the early hours of Wednesday morning, six days after the BBC Two broadcast.

Transmission times - UK digital TV and international broadcasts

If you have access to BBC Four (digital TV) or BBC World (abroad), you will find Horizon there as well, after its transmission on BBC Two. The links above will help you find when you can watch Horizon that way.

(The links are active on the BBC page, see link above the quote)

Placebo

Reply #8 –
As I understand it, the basic principle of homeopathy isn't dilution, it is treating a disorder by exposing the
body to a weaker version of something that causes the same disorder, on the theory that it will encourage
the body to resist it.  Note that by implication, "mainstream" medicine uses homeopathy in vaccines
and some allergy treatments, and excercise strengthens muscles by damaging them such that they
heal back stronger.

I think the infinite dilution can be viewed by the analogy of a tradesman who  is obsessed with hammers, and will use no other tool. There are lots of things you can build, fix, or purposely tear down with hammers, but they aren't really right for every task.  When they aren't right, the best you can do is use an infinitely small hammer.

Placebo

Reply #9 –
I saw the programme last night too, very inteserting indeed.

Quote
As I understand it, the basic principle of homeopathy isn't dilution, it is treating a disorder by exposing the
body to a weaker version of something that causes the same disorder, on the theory that it will encourage
the body to resist it


Partly you're right, but the dilution is apparently important. The smaller the percentage the better it "works".
daefeatures.co.uk

Placebo

Reply #10 –
The dilution is given in "ch" units. One ch means diluted 100 times (1% of product).
Therefore the dilution reaches less than one molecule per medicine around 14 ch (diluted 10000000000000000000000000000 times). This is considered an average dilution. Strong dilutions are around 30 ch (diluted 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times). If the laboratory can afford such accuracy, there is not a single molecule of medicine in it. It's pure sugar.
Some have experimented 10,000 or 100,000 ch dilutions (I don't have the place to write the factor here).

Edit : the manuacturing process consists in diluting the product in alcohol, then put one drop in pure alcohol, shake, take one drop of the result and put it in pure alcohol, etc.

For stronger dilutions, it seems that they rather let some alcohol (or water ?) flow into the same contener until the right dilution is reached. But it seems to me that if a single molecule of product is dissolved into the "walls" of the contener, then released, the dilution will never exeed 12~14 ch.

Placebo

Reply #11 –
Quote
This is considered an average dilution. Strong dilutions are around 30 ch.

The programme explained this last night, amazing. Apparently one drop in all the worlds oceans would make a stronger solution!




I've seen Randi from last night's programme on other shows before. He's a paranormal investigator/debunker mostly. I enjoyed watching him squirm when it looked like Horizon's tests were going to go against him, his face was a picture.
daefeatures.co.uk

Placebo

Reply #12 –
Related to this is the skeptic's dictionary, quite interesting lecture:

http://www.skepdic.com


BTW, I like James Randi (for what I've read and seen on him so far). He offers 1 million $ to anyone that can prove or show under controlled conditions existence of paranormal phenomena. That offering has gone for several years, but nobody has even passed preliminary tests yet: http://www.randi.org

On the other side, I think placebo can be good sometimes, if nobody is harmed and there are real benefits for the "victims". What I don't like is people cheating other people, taking advantage of them just to make money, more if the cheaters are aware of their condition of cheaters, and even more if the "victims" don't get any real benefits.

Even I have used things (in a more or less medical context) that I don't know for sure if are placebo or not, but prefer not to know because they work for me, and are cheap.

Still, if one has to resort to technical explanations on a discussion or in research, placebo effect removal is a must.

Placebo

Reply #13 –
Quote
I enjoyed watching him squirm when it looked like Horizon's tests were going to go against him, his face was a picture.

He says on the BBC website, in response to a similar comment, "I'm also an actor!"

He (and any statistition) would know how likely it is that initial results can "look" like they're going to prove something (fairly likely!) but then further results show that there's really no effect there at all.


The positive power of placeabo? Well, just convince yourself that your audio files and audio system are the best possible, and that everyong else is just deluding themselves if they think there's is better - then you'll think your music sounds great! :-)

Well, I guess it might not work for 128kbps Xing played on LabTec PC speakers... 

Cheers,
David.

Placebo

Reply #14 –
Hey 2Bdecided, check the spelling of placebo... 

Placebo

Reply #15 –
I never claimed to be able to spell. There's usually only a spell checker sitting between me, you, and complete incomprehension

Cheers,
David.

EDIT: and if it sounds like I don't care, well... English should be phonetic! There are even (totally unsucessful) proposals for this. If this was how things were, then kids could just be taught the basic rules (and how to speek properly, obviously!) then they could spend the rest of the hundreds of hours they currently waste learning how to spell doing something much more interesting and useful. How do you spell a word? Exactly as it sounds. It would be so simple.

Actually, I've just realised the flaw in this idea: If implemented, no one from America would be able to spell anything correctly   

Cheers,
David.
 

Placebo

Reply #16 –
i found a transcript at http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/...athytrans.shtml

interesting stuff, i mean the placebo part, if i twist that a bit,
would that mean that most of the medical stuff is fake? (since placebo is working for them anyway), was reading about surgeries that were abandoned, when one of the doctors did a false surgery procedure and it helped the pacient anyway.

Code: [Select]
How do you spell a word? Exactly as it sounds. It would be so simple.
there are actually languages where this applies.
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung