[...]
pb2488 wrote:Finally, I have no objection to what you say:
This is not a personal opinion, I spoke on the basis of the state of current knowledge (even if I take certain precautions in my formulations.).
pb2488 wrote:...The latter demanded from his patients a total faith in homeopathy and forced them to read the Organon ...[...]
It seems to me that faith and reading the Organon are forms of mental suggestion: It meets ...
A few tracks, to put an end to that, which is by far not the center of the debate. a) It would already be necessary to start, to make the difference with what is of the order of "somat". b) Side "suggestion". There is suggestion and suggestion. If you are suggesting to yourself that a medicine is going to cure you, or that you are suggesting a metabolic response to your body. That's not the same at all. If you concentrate, for example, by thinking very hard about increasing your body temperature, when it is bitterly cold, you will be overcome with a pleasant heat, will have the feeling that it is less cold ( at least for a while) and your body will put in place mechanisms to fight against the cold by burning calories. This still does not mean that we are in a logic of the type "placebo / nocébo" but rather management of a "stress" caused by the cold, the body will try to restore a balance. If we take the example of homeopathy, some defend cases where the solution has an effect on memory, by going to act a bit like a vaccine. We're still not in the placebo.
pb2488 wrote:Obamot wrote:.... a form of intention process of a certain form of "field medicine".
Perhaps, indeed, it is a form of intentional trial. Perhaps, because it seems to me that homeopathy abuses the portfolios and the gullibility of patients and even contributors .... even if it is not very expensive, we still buy granules of nothing people. The interview / diagnosis would surely suffice if it was explained to them.
What do you know? No, there is really nothing sure, alas. You probably have a very Manichean view of things, which I respect. But in the present case it is not relevant.
pb2488 wrote:But, as I already wrote above, it probably avoids that some patients take heavier and more expensive treatments, in cases where it cures them .....
You keep coming back to that, but no. If a doctor had to "put out the fire" he would choose the strategy best suited to his patient. He would choose to treat a high fever with the means he knows and which are likely to best preserve the health of the patient. I absolutely doubt that a high fever due to an infection will be resolved by a placebo. Point bar. If now there are other ways to mobilize a sufficient immune response, that the doctor knows that he can administer it in the sole interest of the patient and without any danger to him and that it produces the desired effect, I take, and I doubt that the means used can be "qualified" as a placebo ... So the debate on this point is closed. No need to come back to it again and again ... everyone understood. Thank you.
