Implausible anecdotes.

[Admin]

I came across this article today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2270559,00.html

It's by Jamie Whyte and was a response to the homeopathic antimalarial issue.

It's a great article but what caught my eye was the readers' responses. The usual fallacious points and confusing herbal remedies with homeopathic remedies etc.

Then I saw this one:

<blockquote>I too laughed long and hard at the implausability of homeopathy when my wife decided to give it a try. Its central premise is scientifically preposterous yet having taken the 'remedy' my wife enjoyed a complete recovery. I then spent several months witnessing, often with complete astonishment, homeopathic remedies curing all sorts of ailments and chronic conditions in friends and family. Sometimes it just didn't work but more often than not it did and sometimes the curative effect could only be described as miraculous (especially in children and animals - hence my doubts that it is purely placebo). I now laugh when I hear doctors saying there's no evidence that it works. I used it to cure a very painful tooth abcess - the dentist was all for invasive dental surgery backed up with antibiotics. A few sugar pills containing "nothing" cured it overnight. A truly enlightened scientific mind would be curious about these very real effects and want to investigate further.

Paul Wilkinson, Lancaster, UK</blockquote>I've come across a few people who argue the case for their particular belief in such a way. Fortunately, I've managed to question one or two of them before being banned from the forums for asking skeptical questions. ::)

There's usually the obligatory 'miracle cure' but just to get the point home, their children (whom doctors can't cure) were cured, their friends and neighbours, and their (again, the seemingly obligatory) pets...

It's the overt exaggeration that gives it away.

What I found was that such people are hypochondriacs. ??? The one that really clinched it for me was someone who'd cured herself, husband, and children of all sorts of diseases (that doctors couldn't cure) by giving up Aspartame!!

As skeptics, we all know how untrustworthy anecdotes are, but ones like this often give the game away.

I wonder how persuasive his argument would be to the non-critical thinker? :ponder:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I hope for Mr Wilkinson's sake that he never had an abscess in the first place!

[Mojo]

It's a great article but what caught my eye was the readers' responses. The usual fallacious points and confusing herbal remedies with homeopathic remedies etc.

Then I saw this one:

<blockquote>I too laughed long and hard at the implausability of homeopathy when my wife decided to give it a try. Its central premise is scientifically preposterous yet having taken the 'remedy' my wife enjoyed a complete recovery. I then spent several months witnessing, often with complete astonishment, homeopathic remedies curing all sorts of ailments and chronic conditions in friends and family. Sometimes it just didn't work but more often than not it did and sometimes the curative effect could only be described as miraculous (especially in children and animals - hence my doubts that it is purely placebo). I now laugh when I hear doctors saying there's no evidence that it works. I used it to cure a very painful tooth abcess - the dentist was all for invasive dental surgery backed up with antibiotics. A few sugar pills containing "nothing" cured it overnight. A truly enlightened scientific mind would be curious about these very real effects and want to investigate further.

Paul Wilkinson, Lancaster, UK</blockquote>

The problem is, of course, that when people with enlightened scientific minds investigate further, these spectacular effects dwindle rapidly, and we're left with an effect that, even in the trials that appear to be most positive for homoeopathy, seems to be only just distinguishable from placebo.


I wonder how persuasive his argument would be to the non-critical thinker? This is a very effective argument. That is why, instead of trials that eliminate factors other than homoeopathy, they'd rather run suveys like the Bristol one last year, that relied entirely on post hoc ergo propter hoc in reaching the conclusion that homoeopathy works. "We gave loads of patients homoeopathy when they were ill, and 70% of them thought they had got at least a bit better when we asked them afterwards!"

[Aardvark]

Lots of conditions do self limit over time.

I had terrible back pain which went on for weeks. It resolved without me doing anything yet I had taken pain killers and had massages.

Strangely the improvement started to take place 1 week after having a lumbar support fitted to my car seats.

Knee pain resolving soon after buying new running shoes

Depression resolving 1 month after a summer holiday and starting a new job.

With human beings being complex and disorders and diseases being multi factorial, it is important to identify an accurate history for all sorts of changes, not just pills taken.

We had lots of problems with my eldest son when he was younger, we tried everything, he even had a preliminary diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome after seeing a couple of trick cyclists and a psychotherapist.

Amazingly he got better when he started to mature and take control of his own destiny, no pills, no tricks. He is now a typical grumpy 16 year old.

Are we all so bl**dy clueless, I am starting to think that we may well be so.

[Admin]

This is a very effective argument.


Yes, I think that most people are swayed far more by anecdotes than evidence and is probably why the likes of the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital get away with their worthless 'research'.

"We tried it and people said it worked" is enough to convince many people that is actually did!

I often ask people who are convinced by such 'evidence' whether they'd be happy if ICI pharmaceuticals said they were introducing a new drug to the market because they'd tried it out on a few people who said it worked and that they'd even cured their pets with it.

Funnily, they are quite happy to accept that such evidence is enough for homeopathy claims but not for those of 'big pharma'. ???