Mod+ 271. DR. LARRY MALERBA, HOW MATERIALISM FAILS MEDICINE

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Apr 14, 2015.

  1. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Yes, no one knows yet how placebo works exactly , if ever , but , one does know that it does work through the power of belief in it.Placebo does work even in surgery sometimes.The power of belief through the human mind is amazing.
    Take a look at the following work of some scientists who tried to elucidate the placebo mystery :

    I am still not allowed to post any links yet , so , i will just redirect you to the source of the video in question via the following simple instructions : never mind the bombastic title that does not really reflect the content of the video :

    Go to youtube

    Type the following in the search box : Placebo: Cracking the code -science documentaries.

    The rest is obvious.
     
  2. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    As long as you stay away from any controversial area of science, sure... you won't encounter many differences of opinion.
     
    Matt² likes this.
  3. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Indeed.But science is , in principle at least , not a matter of opinion , otherwise we would have as many "sciences " as there are human beings on this planet .That would be no science, even though QM has been showing to all of us that "objective " science is a myth , which means that there is an urgent need for a so-called science of the subjective.Long story thus.
     
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    RumShams,

    Why don't you engage in some some constructive debate rather than just make assertions? Stating that something is "pseudo-science" means essentially nothing except that it is not accepted by mainstream science - do you think anyone here is unaware of that? If you want to debate the science, you can't do that in brief staccato bursts!

    David
     
    K9! likes this.
  5. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    The human mind is amazing, agreed.

    Seems like a very generic assertions to address my points though, which you did not address.
    What is the rest that is obvious... who knows? You discuss in riddles, or maybe you're too lazy to articulate your point?
     
  6. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Later, folks.
    I am really busy and i am not allowed to post relevant links yet either,sorry.Thank you for all your interesting replies.
    Tomorrow is another day ."Like me " then lol to help me be able to post links ....Take care.
     
  7. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    Let me help you out - I think this is what you wanted to link to:

    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...g-the-code&s=cd225924b36e0c86ba9f5bc9d6dd7b26

    In a way, that makes exactly the point - that the mind has far more power over the body than has been assumed by science. Clearly there is a problem about how to exploit that fact. If placebo surgery became common, it would lose its effect, and be relatively expensive.

    Now ask yourself, has medical science wrongly understood knee joints and how to fix them for so long? Maybe it has, but that doesn't say that much for science, does it! Many of us are conscious of the triumphs of science, and yet feel it has over-reached itself, and may be doing considerable harm in a variety of ways.

    Orthodox science believes that the mind (i.e. consciousness) is somehow created by the brain, but this is by no means proven (!!), and obviously has relevance to the interpretation of the videos you linked to. If the brain does not create the mind, but merely links to it, then that opens a whole variety of possibilities:

    1) The mind can somehow directly affect the physical - even mechanical - working of the knee joint!

    2) Maybe other minds - such as that of an alternative therapist - can achieve something similar.

    3) How much of medical science only works because people believe it should?

    Nobody who debates here needs to abandon their knowledge of science, but simply open their minds a little to some remarkable possibilities.

    David
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2015
    K9! and Judith like this.
  8. DocMalerba

    DocMalerba New

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    8
    Sorry guys, I don't know how to quote previous comments in the colored boxes here but...great discussion.

    I’m not sure what your concern is, Alex. I don’t disagree with the Wiki description that you quoted although, as you know, Wiki is highly biased against homeopathy. Wiki knows that this description will make materialists balk at such an outlandish notion.

    All such explanations are merely attempts to explain that which has been repeatedly observed in actual practice. And “explanations” are exactly what scientific materialism demands. Again, we must ask ourselves, when did it become acceptable science to reject a phenomenon simply because it cannot be explained? One would think it should provoke even greater interest, not less. It doesn’t matter to me whether I say…

    1. homeopathy is the science of the paradoxical effect (compare Ritalin and the like)
    2. homeopathy is the emerging science of nanopharmacological biomimicry
    3. homeopathic medicines stimulate the vital force to heal itself
    4. homeopathic medicines create constructive resonance with the life force thus resulting in resolution of the underlying energetic disturbance
    5. there also are many complex explanations arising from physicists who have studied homeopathy

    They all represent attempts to explain the repeatedly observed fact that small doses (diluted and succussed) of substances capable of mimicking the symptom pattern of a sick person result in the long term resolution of said symptom complexes and a general increase of well being of that person.

    As far as higher potencies being “stronger,” I agree with Saiko’s characterization of the phenomenon: they “catalyze a stronger response.” This too has been repeatedly observed, so much so, that I am very reluctant to give a “higher” potency to an older person with a weak constitution. The response can be too strong for them to handle. Higher potencies are known from experience to create stronger reactions, act more deeply upon the constitution, and result in longer lasting improvements. 200 years of documented case studies reflect this. But then again, mainstream science has declared all of that history to be merely anecdotal. Experiments establishing this phenomenon are being done in “low dose medicine” and by those who study hormesis and by physicists.

    Judith, I call them archetypal energies because human illness and animal illness (see veterinary homeopathy) occur in patterns that are remarkably similar to the patterns found all throughout nature. A case of hives looks a lot like a bunch of bee stings, a case of shingles or chicken pox looks a lot like poison ivy, sleep apnea and narcolepsy resemble symptoms of opium intoxication, the fight or flight response of a PTSD patient looks a lot like Jimson weed intoxication, and so on. It is reasonable to theorize that, prior to the creation of synthetic substances by chemistry and technology—substances that themselves can trigger illnesses—all that was needed to heal all humankinds’ ails was at our fingertips, readily found in nature. But synthetics have complicated matters quite a bit.
     
    Judith and Michael Larkin like this.
  9. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,123
    Well said, sir! :)
     
    Judith and DocMalerba like this.
  10. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,455
    The simplest answer is to press the 'reply' button in the bottom right hand corner of the post. That will start of a reply box with all the other person's text surrounded by square brackets quote, and square brackets backslash quote. You add your comments right at the bottom. Once you see the structure of this process, you can do all sorts of things - such as interspersing your responses in the middle of their text, or shortening their text so as to reply to one point of interest.

    David
     
    DocMalerba likes this.
  11. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,045
    Suggestion and expectation are very powerful tools to which we are all prone. They are the drivers of hypnotism and we know that they "work". (This is not a mind=brain or mind>brain statement or position, incidentally.)

    I'm interested in how Dr Malerba accounts for these factors when he reviews the efficacy of his interventions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2015
  12. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    I quoted you just to make sure you saw this list: any advice on how to pick a practitioner? Is it ever done via phone or online? If so, who would you suggest?

    Thanks!

    Note: I must add that until reading this thread - I've yet to listen to the podcast - that I was somewhat like Alex. I'd actually never even considered homeopathy at all.
     
  13. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    your patience is admirable :)
     
    Steve likes this.
  14. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    again, I agree with the general gist of what you're saying and appreciate that you have a lot of experience that has informed your opinions. I still think there's a glitch in this logic, but I've pounded on that enough... no need to obscure the correctness of the big picture you're painting. I hope you're around if I ever need a doc :)
     
  15. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Let me try a different angle.
    I am not sure if it's really a materialistic mechanism, really.

    From a physical point of view an ultra-low dilution (in homeopathic terms greater or equal than C12 or D24) contains zero molecules of original substance.
    That's what drives western doctors crazy, of course :)

    Homeopathy postulated that water retains an energetic "memory" of the substance anyways, and this imprint can interact with the energetic system of the patient, providing a signal that would resonate with his health state (if the remedy is chosen correctly)

    My speculation (actually is not mine at all) is that this works no different from an energy healing treatment, which you have tried in first person, so you know what I am talking about.

    I know... now you're saying, "But the energy healing comes from a conscious being!".
    Sure that's right, it's a non trivial difference. However the point is that we're using so called "subtle energy" as signals and information which the body responds to.

    The energy healer does it via his consciousness and abilities, the homeopath does by selecting the proper remedy which he recognizes to be resonant with patient status.

    In other words, the homeopath says... "hey, I am not a shaman, I can't send you healing energy directly, but I have lots of experience in selecting a remedy whose energy matches that of your health condition and it will signal your body to react"

    Makes sense?
    Does it also deal with the "glitch in the logic" that you mentioned to Dr Malerba?
     
    Judith likes this.
  16. RumShams

    RumShams New

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Yeah, indeed , the video , not the forum.
    Well, no wonder that science has been underestimating , so to speak, the power of the human mind over the body ,since science has been materialist ,and hence has been assuming that the mind is just brain activity or the product of the brain without any causal effects on matter , brain or body : we are our brains thus , according to materialist science : our brains do all the work , in a determined or automatic way, pretty much like computers do : we are just hardware run by software.

    This classical mechanical deterministic computer-like metaphor regarding life in general is obviously false, which means that materialist science is still stuck within the classical mechanical deterministic Newtonian world view upon which materialism was built , ironically and paradoxically enough , despite the fact that classical physics has been superseded by QM ,and despite the fact that classical physics is approximately correct and fundamentally false thus, and hence reductionist materialism is also false.

    Materialist science has even been trying to explain (away) the placebo effect ,for example, via physiological explanations (away) , in the sense that placebo effect is just the work of the autonomic nervous system , for example.

    But then again , one can even learn how to take control of the autonomic brain itself via biofeedback training , for example.

    Materialists then would argue that even the effects of biofeedback training can be explained physiologically , without resorting to any "mystical " notion of the mind.

    The same goes for psi phenomena , for example : materialists would try to come up with physiological or psychological explanations (away ) of NDE , out of body experiences, telepathy , ....without much success thus.

    Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry would go bankrupt ,if one would acknowledge the healing power of the human mind and its primacy over the body.

    science is not business and politics + ideology free.


    Sure.Take the pharmaceutical industry , for example : that global billion dollars business has an obvious interest in reducing man to just physics and chemistry , for obvious reasons.

    Materialist science has even been delivering a highly distorted version of reality , including human nature , the mind and so on, despite its enormous successes at the level of matter at least.

    All that cannot but have consequences for us all .

    I have already mentioned in 1 of my earlier posts that materialism is certainly false , so i agree with you indeed.

    Exactly, but open -mindedness is no synonymous of putting healthy skepticism on hold either , let alone that open-mindedness would mean that one has to abandon the falsification criterion in science.Take care.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2015
  17. DocMalerba

    DocMalerba New

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    8
    Reece, Thanks for your willingness to consider homeopathy.
    Just drop me an email at <docmalerba@gmail.com> and I can try to help you with a referral.
     
    Reece likes this.
  18. DocMalerba

    DocMalerba New

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    8
    malf,
    Evaluating responses to prescriptions has a variety of guidelines that are too numerous to spell out here. Of course, it is always dependent upon the judgment of the clinician, no different from a regular doctor. Nevertheless, it is usually pretty clear to me whether a remedy has “worked” or not. I would expect a relatively short-lived (temporary) response from a placebo (possibly generated by my interaction with the patient and the suggestive power of pills I prescribe). I would also expect any improvements from placebo to be in terms of specific complaints (i.e.: my headaches were less, I slept a little better, etc).

    I know, again, from experience, that a satisfactory therapeutic response from a remedy will be longer lasting and much more global. I understand that such a response might occur from a placebo but that would be the rare exception.
    For example, let’s say that Joe Blow has migraines, trouble falling asleep, fatigue from 11am to 2pm, itchy eczema patches on his arms, a tendency toward diarrhea in the mornings, is intolerant of hot weather and prefers winter, a strong fear of heights, a tendency to be a know-it-all causing him to frequently engage in arguments, and an absolute aversion to eggs.

    A homeopath would understand this as one state of dysfunction, not the separate and unrelated diagnoses that this person would receive from a regular doc (migraines, insomnia, eczema, irritable bowel, etc). Therefore, a successful homeopathic Rx would be expected to moderate most, if not all, of the above symptoms. And it would be expected to last a good while, weeks or months, not just a few days. There should be global lasting improvement on all levels, mentally, emotional, physically, and energetically (including the fear of heights, argumentativeness, warmbloodedness, etc). If the improvements were to diminish after a few weeks, it would be expected that a couple/few more doses of the remedy would set the person back on track and, if not, a better, more accurate Rx would be sought. It is not typical for a placebo to consistently produce this kind of result.

    As I said, there are many other considerations. For example, a decent percentage of people will experience a so-called “aggravation” (healing crisis) initially, before the aforementioned improvements take hold. And genuine healing should adhere to what is called the “direction of cure.” In other words, the above person may report the complete disappearance of his migraines and insomnia, accompanied by a phase of worsening of his itchy eczema. This would be in accordance with the direction of cure (from inside out, moving from deeper to more superficial symptomatology). If the same person were to report the disappearance of his eczema and a worsening of his migraines over an extended period of time, that would not be a good thing. Of course, that type of response is a routine consequence of suppressive drug treatments but medicine never acknowledges this, and prefers to look at each symptom as separate and unrelated.

    And, of course, I’m sure you know that the so-called placebo effect is ubiquitous, conventional medicine not being immune to it. In fact, all those billions of dollars, research studies, gleaming hospitals, white coats, MRI machines, and so on, can generate a pretty impressive placebo response. :)
     
    Bucky and Reece like this.
  19. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    again, I totally hear what you're saying and open to a lot of it. I just think you have to be careful when you start saying/believing that you're discovered some mechanism whereby you can control dosages in the way the wiki entry suggests. I mean, you can't on one hand say conventional/materialist medicine is hamstrung by this silly Newtonian giant clock understanding of the body and on the other hand say we've discovered that when we dilute this treatment by 10 times we increase potency by 10 times.

    I'm ok with someone saying they have a body of experience that has led them to use/try a particular set of treatments in response to a certain situation, I just get a little uneasy when they want to turn it into a little-Pharma scheme.
     
    malf likes this.
  20. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,045
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2015

Share This Page