On anorexia and genes, here is one of many studies:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4032517...risk-may-be-determined-genetics/#.UGZ7KVGvYTc
The difference between what I am saying is one of logic. I do not say "we do not know what it is, therefore its genetic" at any point, nor is it implied. I am saying that genetic risk factors have been identified. They could be wrong of course, but for now there appears to be a snp risk. Genes sometimes can cause disease on their own, but frequently they require some factor to modify their expression - that comes from the environment.
Here is a comment from Wikipedia on placebo effect:
"Since the publication of
Henry K. Beecher's
The Powerful Placebo [9] in 1955, the phenomenon has been considered to have clinically important effects.
[10] This view was notably challenged when, in 2001, a
systematic review of clinical trials concluded that there was no evidence of clinically important effects, except perhaps in the treatment of pain and continuous subjective outcomes.
[10] The article received a flurry of criticism,
[11] but the authors later published a
Cochrane review with similar conclusions (updated as of 2010).
[12] Most studies have attributed the difference from baseline till the end of the trial to a placebo effect, but the reviewers examined studies which had both placebo and untreated groups in order to distinguish the placebo effect from the natural progression of the disease.
[10] However these conclusions have been criticized because of the great variety of diseases—more than 40—in this metastudy. The effect of placebo is very different in different diseases. By pooling quite different diseases the results can be leveled out."
The placebo effect has only really been substantiated on factors with
subjective responses. People who go through the Lightning Process can feel better without being better - some have had catastrophic relapse. The original data, and most of the supporting work, irrc, show that the placebo effect is effective at modifying pain perception. It modifies
perception, its not a proven cure.
While I am generally suspicious of Cochrane reviews, when I read this paper several years ago it did not appear to be particularly problematic. There are good reasons why the Cochrane group insist on RCTs in most cases. Many pat theories, with hundreds of supporting papers, not only turned out to be wrong, they turned out to be dangerous - a case in point being the use of anti-arhythmia drugs for heart arhythmia. I forget the estimated numbers, but its estimated that an extremely large number of people were killed by these drugs - possible millions irrc.
So to get back to my reasoning. I conclude that the notion of a placebo effect
as a cure is a fallacy. That does NOT mean it cannot happen, it means we do not know it is happening and cannot prove it, the argument does not support it. We also do not know
why it
might be happening.
A placebo in most treatment trials is simply a control group anyway.
Again to reiterate the point, a fallacious argument can have a correct conclusion. It can be fallacious because either the premises are false, or the reasoning is invalid. Arguments relying on the psychogenic fallacy are fallacious, period.
Bye, Alex