From Dogs Naturally: Evidenced Based Medicine

[SirTeddykins]

I also want to add that I find it very sad that someone was 'afraid' to post their thoughts re: homeopathic remedies. Although I think this particular link is not a good representation of the pros of the approach, there are well-known instances where homeopathic remedies are effective.


For example, the neurological condition 'restless legs syndrome' is often treated with Parkinson disease medication. This is because it is thought that dopamine levels = restless leg symptoms. However, Parkinson disease medication targets multiple pathways which may not be relevant to someone not suffering from the condition. In addition, the medication can cause unpleasant hallucinatory effects!

Therefore, MD's often suggest (as a first step of treatment) that patients consider putting a bar of soap under their mattress at night. There are numerous reports that this is effective at minimizing restless leg symptoms.


So, in the first example, you have evidence based medicine i.e. we know the pros and cons of using this medication for restless legs, it's limitations, how it works, etc.


In the second example, we have word of mouth or 'folk' medicine which thousands of people swear by.


One is not better than the other if they equate to a desirable outcome for the individual concerned.


I think a bridge needs to be drawn between the medicinal community and the homeopathic community. As someone said above, smear campaigns will only result in polarization which is not good for either side. All remedies should be embraced and strengths and limitations analyzed and discussed honestly.


I find it concerning the level of mistrust that is shown towards medicine despite all it has done to allow us and our dogs to overcome so many ailments and conditions.


It would be nice if we weren't 'sided' so that we could consider the good and bad for all treatment/curative/preventative methods for various conditions.


One final thing, medicines have to be shown to be more effective than placebos for the targeted condition or they are disregarded and not approved. I'm not sure how many know that!

[ladyjane]

People who are afraid to post things need to ask themselves why they are afraid. Is it because they cannot handle that people will disagree? If so, then perhaps they should not post things like this. Once you believe in something, it should not matter that others do not.

I know that for some time here on the topic of dog food there were SO many people bashing some of the foods I used that I simply didn't want to jump into the fray. Why? Who knows really...I asked myself that question a few times. I still hesitate to post some of my thoughts at times ... shrug....you just have to believe in what you are saying AND IMO be willing to allow others to post their opinions. Who knows...maybe you will learn something that you believed is not so? Maybe they will as well. I have yet to have anyone show me a reason that I felt valid enough for me to change what I feed my pups but I suppose it could happen.

The bottom line IMO is people who are just unwilling to accept that others will have a different opinion...and they take it personal. I think that most of the posters on this forum are not being "personal" in their posts. and...honestly, if someone is, it is their issue. There is a report button though.....but just merely diagreeing is not reportable. We all need to put on our big girl panties and trudge along...each of us is entitled to our opinions.

[gemy]

I think many do know about placebos - what is much more interesting to me - is where is the research on the placebo effect? Many %'s have been quoted on various studies - anywhere from 5 to15% or more. If folks believe that this drug (which they are not getting will cure them or help them) and they are helped or cured - Wow! why not try to find out how that happened.


Is it possible we humans have the innate ability to cure ourselves of what ails us? If so - that would be the most incredible advance in knowledge so far.


Sounds like Sci Fi right? Well so was walking on the moon - which was written about by SciFi writers 40yrs or so before it actually happened.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by gemy

I think many do know about placebos - what is much more interesting to me - is where is the research on the placebo effect? Many %'s have been quoted on various studies - anywhere from 5 to15% or more. If folks believe that this drug (which they are not getting will cure them or help them) and they are helped or cured - Wow! why not try to find out how that happened.


Is it possible we humans have the innate ability to cure ourselves of what ails us? If so - that would be the most incredible advance in knowledge so far.


Sounds like Sci Fi right? Well so was walking on the moon - which was written about by SciFi writers 40yrs or so before it actually happened.

There are millions of published articles re: placebo effect versus medication. Name something for me and I'll pull it up for your perusal!

[gemy]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

People who are afraid to post things need to ask themselves why they are afraid. Is it because they cannot handle that people will disagree? If so, then perhaps they should not post things like this. Once you believe in something, it should not matter that others do not.

The bottom line IMO is people who are just unwilling to accept that others will have a different opinion...and they take it personal. I think that most of the posters on this forum are not being "personal" in their posts. and...honestly, if someone is, it is their issue. There is a report button though.....but just merely diagreeing is not reportable. We all need to put on our big girl panties and trudge along...each of us is entitled to our opinions.

IDKW this particular poster was hesitant to post a controversial article - or at least one she believed would be. Maybe to avoid being ridiculed and made to feel stupid by other members here. To be denigrated for merely finding an article interesting and informative to her.


And I agree with Misty - it is sad that others here are hesitant to post about some things.


In essence what we have talked about is this articles' short-comings. She now can read our comments - learn some more - about how others viewed the article and maybe go away with a more critical mindset when pursuing other articles of this genre. That is a win win for her.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

People who are afraid to post things need to ask themselves why they are afraid. Is it because they cannot handle that people will disagree? If so, then perhaps they should not post things like this. Once you believe in something, it should not matter that others do not.

I know that for some time here on the topic of dog food there were SO many people bashing some of the foods I used that I simply didn't want to jump into the fray. Why? Who knows really...I asked myself that question a few times. I still hesitate to post some of my thoughts at times ... shrug....you just have to believe in what you are saying AND IMO be willing to allow others to post their opinions. Who knows...maybe you will learn something that you believed is not so? Maybe they will as well. I have yet to have anyone show me a reason that I felt valid enough for me to change what I feed my pups but I suppose it could happen.

The bottom line IMO is people who are just unwilling to accept that others will have a different opinion...and they take it personal. I think that most of the posters on this forum are not being "personal" in their posts. and...honestly, if someone is, it is their issue. There is a report button though.....but just merely diagreeing is not reportable. We all need to put on our big girl panties and trudge along...each of us is entitled to our opinions.

Some people are not as articulate as others and so feel intimidated by others ideas which are presented scientifically and, in some ways, arrogantly as compared to lay person's opinions. This phenomenon is known as 'imbalance of power' and it is something clinicians have to be aware of when discussing things with clients. Feeling like your opinions are not justified in the face of someone with different educational attainment, background, profession etc is a very real and frightening experience. Not taking this into consideration can severely damage a patient/clinician relationship as well as peer-to-peer friendships and other dyadic relationships.


So, whilst you seem well grounded in your ability to express your opinion even in the face of adversity, this is almost impossible for some who are afraid of reprisals (real or imagined) like judgment or scorn.


Socio-cultural phenomena is almost always complex and is in no way uni-directional, which is to say, there is more than just cause and effect to various behaviors.


So, people are not necessarily afraid because of you or your opinions, their histories and their own experiences (within this forum and elsewhere) go into what makes them afraid so it would be very hard, therefore, to expect that they just 'get over it'.


Therefore, it is up to us who do not have such fears (or have them to a lesser extent), to show that we have nothing to offer other than education and support re: various opinions. Anything else can be construed as damaging and result in this dichotomy we are seeing here i.e. the 'science' clique vs 'everyone else'.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

There are millions of published articles re: placebo effect versus medication. Name something for me and I'll pull it up for your perusal!

One published research study on how the placebo effect works

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

I have a question for you Phil - I have heard recently that Canada and the USA signed an international agreement years ago - 15 or more years ago - signed an accord that said - the funders of the research *own the research* - and that includes publishing or not the results of the study. As of yet I have not been able to confirm that assertion. If true that is very disturbing to me.

Yaaaaay!!!! I think I found it. It would be the Intellectual Property Rights provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Here are links to the trade agreement itself (major headache to read, but might be worth the bother) and to an analysis of what it means:

NAFTA - Chapter 17

NAFTA's Intellectual Property Provisions | Dr Dobb's

I am pretty certain that the portion you are referring to is the Trade Secrets section, which would protect manufacturing techniques. I think that's pretty reasonable. I couldn't find anything about funders of research owning the research, but I think that's a reasonable intellectual property right. (For instance, when I worked at Iowa State University, if I patented something, the patent was owned by Iowa State University.) HOWEVER, in the case of medicines and therapies, they are still required to prove that medicines and therapies that are being marketed are safe and effective, and to provide information about side effects. Those are basic food and drug laws. Here is the analysis of the Trade Secrets section of NAFTA:

On December 17, 1992 the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which contains the most comprehensive multilateral intellectual property agreement ever concluded. NAFTA was initiated on January 1, 1994 and is expected to create the largest free trade zone in the world with an anticipated gross national product totaling over $6 trillion.


NAFTA's intellectual property provisions create the highest legal standards for protection and enforcement of intellectual property ever negotiated. NAFTA provides companies wishing to do business in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. (and future NAFTA member countries) with the means not only to protect their intellectual property, but also with better laws for doing business in general. Prior to NAFTA, U.S., Canada, and Mexican standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights differed and inhibited the willingness of companies to risk business ventures in foreign countries.

[..]

NAFTA's scope of intellectual property protection includes copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents. In addition, NAFTA also protects semiconductors, geographical indications, satellite broadcast signals, industrial designs, and sound recordings. NAFTA's benefits are not limited to those industries whose primary goods rely on intellectual property rights protections, but rather for any company that seeks to protect its trademarks, logos, and/or trade secrets.

[..]
Trade Secrets


Trade secret law is designed to prevent the unauthorized use and disclosure of confidential information and to provide owners with a means to seek damages and injunctions. Both Canada and the U.S. have high standards for the protection of trade secrets. One problem for high-tech companies and other industries in trying to conduct international business, however, has been the lack of protection for confidential information in many foreign countries, including Mexico. In addition, various countries place limitations on how long proprietary information can remain confidential. This lack of protection can frustrate development projects and wreck strategic alliances when the disclosure of confidential information is critical to the transaction.



NAFTA is the first international agreement to afford protection for trade secrets. Due to NAFTA, Mexico has comprehensive national provisions for the protection of trade secrets. NAFTA requires each member country to provide legal means to prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets that are in a tangible form. Under NAFTA, countries may not limit the duration of protection of trade secrets or discourage or impede the voluntary licensing of trade secrets. This feature, which is a first for any international agreement, should alleviate some of the reluctance to do business because of the lack of trade secrets protection.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by gemy

IDKW this particular poster was hesitant to post a controversial article - or at least one she believed would be. Maybe to avoid being ridiculed and made to feel stupid by other members here. To be denigrated for merely finding an article interesting and informative to her.


And I agree with Misty - it is sad that others here are hesitant to post about some things.


In essence what we have talked about is this articles' short-comings. She now can read our comments - learn some more - about how others viewed the article and maybe go away with a more critical mindset when pursuing other articles of this genre. That is a win win for her.

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. I don't often see what you call denigration here. I believe the complaints have gotten completely out of line....there are many of us who are now afraid to post in disagreement because we know we are being reported left and right. I have been grouped with people even though I speak my own mind....there is no gang here as has been alleged (atleast not that I know of) ...unless it is on the other side. Sometimes we see in others what we don't want to see in ourselves.

Works both ways.
When I saw the OP here, I backed far away from it. I was "afraid" to post....is that fear real? Who knows. I am thinking some of the others "side's" fears may be real...some not so much.
Just my two cents.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by gemy

One published research study on how the placebo effect works

I've sent this to you!


Experimental designs and brain mapping approaches for studying the placebo analgesic effect


I hope this is of interest to you and relevant to your query? It's specific to analgesics but there are so many avenues you could go down re: placebo effect that I had to pick one from many....


If you want more or something else, let me know x

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Yaaaaay!!!! I think I found it. It would be the Intellectual Property Rights provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Here are links to the trade agreement itself (major headache to read, but might be worth the bother) and to an analysis of what it means:

NAFTA - Chapter 17

NAFTA's Intellectual Property Provisions | Dr Dobb's

I am pretty certain that the portion you are referring to is the Trade Secrets section, which would protect manufacturing techniques. I think that's pretty reasonable. I couldn't find anything about funders of research owning the research, but I think that's a reasonable intellectual property right. (For instance, when I worked at Iowa State University, if I patented something, the patent was owned by Iowa State University.) HOWEVER, in the case of medicines and therapies, they are still required to prove that medicines and therapies that are being marketed are safe and effective, and to provide information about side effects. Those are basic food and drug laws. Here is the analysis of the Trade Secrets section of NAFTA:

On December 17, 1992 the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which contains the most comprehensive multilateral intellectual property agreement ever concluded. NAFTA was initiated on January 1, 1994 and is expected to create the largest free trade zone in the world with an anticipated gross national product totaling over $6 trillion.


NAFTA's intellectual property provisions create the highest legal standards for protection and enforcement of intellectual property ever negotiated. NAFTA provides companies wishing to do business in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. (and future NAFTA member countries) with the means not only to protect their intellectual property, but also with better laws for doing business in general. Prior to NAFTA, U.S., Canada, and Mexican standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights differed and inhibited the willingness of companies to risk business ventures in foreign countries.

[..]

NAFTA's scope of intellectual property protection includes copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents. In addition, NAFTA also protects semiconductors, geographical indications, satellite broadcast signals, industrial designs, and sound recordings. NAFTA's benefits are not limited to those industries whose primary goods rely on intellectual property rights protections, but rather for any company that seeks to protect its trademarks, logos, and/or trade secrets.

[..]
Trade Secrets


Trade secret law is designed to prevent the unauthorized use and disclosure of confidential information and to provide owners with a means to seek damages and injunctions. Both Canada and the U.S. have high standards for the protection of trade secrets. One problem for high-tech companies and other industries in trying to conduct international business, however, has been the lack of protection for confidential information in many foreign countries, including Mexico. In addition, various countries place limitations on how long proprietary information can remain confidential. This lack of protection can frustrate development projects and wreck strategic alliances when the disclosure of confidential information is critical to the transaction.



NAFTA is the first international agreement to afford protection for trade secrets. Due to NAFTA, Mexico has comprehensive national provisions for the protection of trade secrets. NAFTA requires each member country to provide legal means to prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets that are in a tangible form. Under NAFTA, countries may not limit the duration of protection of trade secrets or discourage or impede the voluntary licensing of trade secrets. This feature, which is a first for any international agreement, should alleviate some of the reluctance to do business because of the lack of trade secrets protection.

Thanks Phil - I had already looked at NAFTA - surely research results should not qualify as IP - Intellectual Property? I also looked at NRC and saw the same language being used. And this does not to speak specifically to scientific research studies. Sighhh.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

I've sent this to you!


Experimental designs and brain mapping approaches for studying the placebo analgesic effect


I hope this is of interest to you and relevant to your query? It's specific to analgesics but there are so many avenues you could go down re: placebo effect that I had to pick one from many....


If you want more or something else, let me know x

Great article! Here is the link to the abstract: Experimental designs and brain mapping approaches for studying the placebo analgesic effect - Springer

What I like about the abstract is this part:

The understanding of placebo mechanisms is fundamental and necessary to identify ways of accessing and harnessing these mechanisms in clinical practice to the patient’s benefit.

In other words, with a better understanding of the placebo effect, doctors might be able to use the placebo effect to provide additional relief to the patient above and beyond the effects of the medicine.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

Thanks Phil - I had already looked at NAFTA - surely research results should not qualify as IP - Intellectual Property? I also looked at NRC and saw the same language being used. And this does not to speak specifically to scientific research studies. Sighhh.

It's a head scratcher for sure. To me, research results *could* be considered intellectual property. Let me know if you can find other leads to follow, and I'll do the same.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Great article! Here is the link to the abstract: Experimental designs and brain mapping approaches for studying the placebo analgesic effect - Springer

What I like about the abstract is this part:

The understanding of placebo mechanisms is fundamental and necessary to identify ways of accessing and harnessing these mechanisms in clinical practice to the patient’s benefit.

In other words, with a better understanding of the placebo effect, doctors might be able to use the placebo effect to provide additional relief to the patient above and beyond the effects of the medicine.

Yes! Like soap under the bed..lol


I <3 soap.

[Wylie's Mom]

I can definitely understand why this member asked me to post this article, rather than post it herself - and I totally respect and support her decision. I would do the same for any member - on any side of things too. If someone wanted to post an anti-natural-medicine article but didn't want to be the "OP" of it - I'd post it for them in a heartbeat.

I personally have seen people disparaged here for what they've posted, and I've definitely seen sources ridiculed, and people ridiculed to a certain extent too - and that's just super unfortunate and unacceptable. Not ONE of us should stand by and ever, ever accept that kind of targeting or those kinds of comments, seriously.

At the end of the day, if we're posting and we're feeling this desire to ridicule something or denigrate something - we truly should *not* be posting until we resolve those feelings and can post without those factors present.

"I disagree and here's why" is far, far different than "what you've posted is ridiculous!" or "what you've posted is utter nonsense!" (yes, both of which have actually been said here!).

Be respectful, be decent, be supportive of the person whether or not you support the information or what they post or their opinion.