You’re going to have to give me example. I tend to keep a pretty high bar for such things, and while not everyone is on the same page there’s a range that’s pretty well bounded by logic and reason that I keep myself within and the crowds I hang with don’t horrify me and I have plenty of hippie friends I interact with just fine.
I’m not a fan of being antagonistic in EITHER direction, but I also think reason has to win in the end.
Magnetism.
one example quite often touched here in the BBS ist the placebo effect, often in combination with the - to the best of my knowledge - scientifically disproved methods like homoeopathy.
For some values of $SKEPTIC, and some values of $THAT. 
There are plenty of medical interventions, for example, which work very well, although nobody knows why. Speaking as a confirmed skeptic myself, I’d skepticise at an earlier stage: when there’s no evidence that something exists at all (q.v. Russell’s teapot), when I’ve seen no persuasive evidence that an intervention does more good than harm (those bomb detectors, and I can think of one or two more contentious examples), or when an undoubted effect may be adequately explained by a known mechanism without the need to invent an unknown (e.g. homoeopathy).
I love the confidence of scientists who cheerfully say “We’ve no idea how this works yet”. (Reminds me of Richard Feynman, who was once forced to take a class in biology, and said that [at least at the time] the unknowns were so shallow: in physics, you wouldn’t find stuff which nobody understood until grad school at the earliest, but e.g. cell biology would practically start with “These are mitochondria. We haven’t a clue how they work.”)
Well, homeopathy is woo. There’s no argument about that, is there? It provides no benefits and has been scientifically proven to provide no benefits. Also: molecules.
The placebo effect is a known thing and well documented and studied. It is science.
Just because somebody experiences a placebo effect from sugar pills (homeopathic or not) doesn’t mean that the sugar pills suddenly do something.
I don’t think there are many skeptics that are confused by this, and if they are send them my way.
oh, the confusion happens quite often. even when a GP hands out globules with the explanation that it has no explainable effect outside of the placebo realm it’s called by some unethical and quackery (c.f. BBS, I’m sure you can find it in my comment history if you’re interested)
Are they calling it ‘Homeopathy’? Then it’s Woo AND unethical.
Are they saying ‘this is to take advantage of the placebo effect’ (Which does work in situations…the optimism bias is powerful) then it’s not and totally groovy.
The key is DON’T DECEIVE. 
start somewhere here and decide for yourself
Not at all. It’s been proven that homeopathy only works by triggering the placebo effect, but that effect is extremely strong; if a doctor gives you sugar pills and uses a fancy word for them (yes, among a lot of people, ‘homeopathic remedy’ carries weight) with the knowledge that its placebo effect can help and the pills have zero side effects, I don’t see the issue.
My grandmother was a nurse in the 40s and 50s, and even back then, she said they’d often give hypochondriacs sugar pills labeled “Obecalp” if they kept coming up with fake aches and pains. “Worked every time,” she told me.
Okay… again, super-duper simple. This isn’t confusing.
If the GP uses the word Homeopathy at ALL they’re unethical because that’s a general term for a lot of ‘cures’, and people might buy into other aspects of it.
If they prescribe sugar pills for one specific treatment and do not use the word ‘homeopathy’ then they’re fine. The placebo effect still works.
the argument is raised louder, therefore it’s right?
I see, 'twas fun talking to you
I bolded the salient points. I was hoping you’d digest the difference, because again…it’s not at all complicated.
Is it important to you that the word ‘Homoepathy’ be given credit by physicians for some reason? Rather than just being honest with their patients?
Do you see the risk of somebody assuming that the huge suite of OTHER homeopathic medications might work too? Which does not exist with direct sugar pill prescriptions?
you said the GP talked about homoeopathy, the shared story linked above is as accurately quoted as my memory permits
Your doctor said (your quote)
“my” doc gave me prescription for some homeopathic thingy last winter when I had a ugly cold, with an explanation similar to “sorry, I cannot do anything for you instead of a sick certificate until you feel better. in my experience the globuli are helping even if it’s not something I can explain with science”.
That is a lie. There is nothing ‘homeopathic medicine’ can do that sugar pills can’t (they are the same thing). The only benefit it has is placebo, which science is quite aware of. We can (and have, repeatedly) verified that is the case. Are you saying that you believe otherwise?
On top of that, the fact that there was no mention of them being merely sugar pills and that the intent is to use the placebo effect (which can work even when the patient is aware…and no ethics violations that way) means he/she was now definitely not doing right by her patient.
For many more examples and rational analysis: Sciencebasedmedicine and their crew are your friends.
If your doctor said that then he/she was indeed unethical. There was no ‘we know these are just sugar pills, but the placebo effect is a powerful thing’ or even a recommendation to do something genuinely useful (meditation, yoga, whatever) with a positive spin…nothing. That was exactly what people are trying to fight.
Before we continue, would you please address why you think that being honest and giving you sugar pills would not have been sufficient? Do you think homeopathy has some benefit OTHER than the placebo effect? And do you understand the concern that people in healthcare have about this specific issue?
I don’t think you understand the concept of the placebo effect. Do you actually believe that if a doctor said, “here, these are sugar pills. If you believe really hard that they’ll cure you, they might!” that it’d trigger a placebo effect?
I linked an article above. And yes, in cases it can work.
Even in cases where it doesn’t work, it’s no longer considered ethical to lie to a patient…so it really doesn’t matter. We have laws against that in a number of States here. (for a reason)
It’s super-extra-triple unethical to imply that a whole swath of fake medicines work. That is not worth the risk, and is part of why we have these problems.
You can trigger the effect in other ways, like adding a known benefit (meditation for example, or excercise) and simply hinting that with the right attitude it can make an amazing difference. There’s zero reason to give Homeopathy any more money or support than it already has.
Ok, so in your opinion, it’s better to tell patients to literally pray over sugar pills rather than give them homeopathic pills, even knowing that it’s proven to work really well at triggering a placebo effect. Man, you really, really hate homeopathy. Duly noted.
the placebeo effect can even be triggered when the patient knows the treatment has absolutely no function. it’s fascinating.
not sure why you’re trying to discuss on this level, but fine.
I am convinced that a water solution without any active ingredient is not a medicament. but I see no problem with homoeopathic thingies when they are described as “have no measurable biological effectiveness”.
No, I dislike when healthcare professionals don’t take their role seriously, and supporting a multi-billion dollar industry that is ripping off the easily deceived doesn’t help anyone.
Why is it so important to you that doctors prescribe them?
I mean, what you do on your free time is totally our deal… but this is an individual in a position of authority speaking to individuals who are prone to believe whatever they say.
And you didn’t answer any of my other questions, that’s kind of important for good converastion.
And I’m specifically complaining about DOCTORS prescribing them.
