And i would add that homeopathic drugs are not required to prove their effect in blinded trials to be registered. Thanks to Boiron and their powerful sugar-coated pills lobby.
Do you have a reliable source for that? I omitted adding a source because if you look for scientific research on homeopathy you find essentially only studies stating that it does not work, Wikipedia has plenty of references.
I too would be interested in a source. I don't think that homeopathy works, but I am willing to admit I can be wrong. Doubt is essential to make progress:
Also, the placebo effect shouldn't be used dismissively. If you convince someone they should be feeling pain (tell them they're next to a low frequency transmitter that causes pain when they're really next to an empty speaker box), that pain is real in the sense their nervous system can have a physical reaction to it. It is in their heads, but perceptions can generate physical responses.
You have to be very, very when discussing the placebo effect to distinguish between reporting differences and actual differences. That gets very complicated when you only have self-reporting of a subjective state to evaluate things on.
The classic study was on asthma treatments. Patients would subjectively report feeling better when on the placebo treatment, but the objective measurements of lung function showed no difference.
If people report being in less pain or less depressed when on a placebo treatment but attempt & complete suicide at the same rate... well, fuck.
That was not meant dismissive, the placebo effect is of course a well established and very real effect. But there is nothing more than the placebo effect in homeopathy.
Note that most of what we call placebo effect is actually return to the mean. True placebo effect exists but its much more limited than what people usually think.
Naively I would expect regression toward the mean to weaken the placebo effect - using a placebo seems a better idea in light cases and even in a controlled study you would probably not be allowed to only use placebos in severe cases so that it seems more likely that the situation worsens which would reduce the observed strength of the placebo effect in the other direction.
But placebo only work in the situations considered as light cases, where regression to the mean is still feasible. Once you consider cancer, severe infections or other stuff like that, there is no placebo effect anymore. That's why I said most of the placebo effect is regression to the mean, and once you study diseases where regression to the mean never occur, then the placebo effect is in-existent.
The knowledge of homeparhy in Science is really limited.
We cab image the the surface of the top of iceberg as what know the science of homeopathy.
All the iceberg is what you can know learning study and practice homeopathy for years or a live. this is my vision
No, homeopatic anecdotes are not science. Science has studied homeopathy and found it to be complete and utter nonsense. That's the end of the story, it's superstition and does not work. You either understand that, or remain willfully ignorant. There are no other options.
Homeopathy doesn't work, that's a fact, what part about that known fact seems to confuse you? Why are you insisting something that is KNOWN to not work, works? What don't you get?
There is no mechanism of homeopathy other than the placebo effect, homeopathy is pseudo-scientific bullshit, simple as that, it's fiction. If you think it works, it only demonstrates that you have no understanding of the placebo effect and are easily taken in by bullshit.
> Clinic results are differente from test with placebo
reply
Yes they are differents. Homeopathy cure the person not the hill. In test only the hill is observed not the unity of person. Tests are exclusives, clinics is inclusives
When you run a well-conducted trial you find zero benefit to homeopathy. When you run a poorly-conducted study, with poor blinding or weak randomization you find some benefits to homeopathy. When you don't even run a study, but just give people homeopathy in clinics they'll tell you it works because they say they can feel a difference.
There does seem to be a body of anecdotal evidence pointing towards some kind actual happening "outside what we know" for phenomenon like the "kundalini" effect, however I don't see how the mechanism of action could be quantum in nature. That is, I suppose, not saying much as I don't see how it could work in any case, but I think more exploratory work does need to be done. Then again, I don't really know and if anyone does know of any scientific studies on kundalini phenomenon, I'd love to read about them.
There's a body of anecdotal evidence for anything you can imagine, that's we don't value anecdotal evidence once we've looked for real evidence and not found it. Most people are greatly confused by the placebo effect, it is the source of all these anecdotal experiences.
i think there are studies on the much broader range of phenomena associated with meditation in general. its hard to find good examples of such things quickly with google though because there are a large number of poor quality studies too...
i don't think its particularly crazy to suggest that people practising mental discipline can alter their minds or perceptions.
its very easy to convince oneself that the left arm is paralysed for instance... or to hallucinate by fixating on an object or point in space.
also, its very well evidenced that psychology has an effect on health...
on the other hand there is no evidence of, nor any need for explanations involving, "mystical energies" of any kind, as far as i can see.
anecdotal evidence is evidence, its just not of a good quality.
a lot of things rely on it for their justification. the best example i think i can give in the context of wanky hipster startups would be "agile methodologies"... despite the completely different area of concern they are also attributed properties which are inherently difficult to measure and perform experimentation with. i've seen very little evidence except for anecdotal evidence to back the claims surrounding them (although certainly, they are based on quite reasonable conclusions to reach with no evidence at all - by using logic and "common sense" to derive from better known quantities)
i'd say its often too wooly to even call a single data point, but in other cases its obviously very many.
if 1000s of people are telling the same story, thats 1000s of potential data points... they lose value from being ill defined rather than being small in number.
> if 1000s of people are telling the same story, thats 1000s of potential data points... they lose value from being ill defined rather than being small in number.
reply
They don't exist in isolation though. If thousands are telling the same story and there is no independent corroboration then it's more likely that one person told a story and thousands repeated it.
Homeopathy is a very specific thing, where you take a substance with a bad effect and dilute it so much there's none left, in an attempt to cause the opposite effect, with more dilution being better.
Thinking is math. If thinking is put in relations different things this is math.
With the dialetics of yin and yang we can compare and put in a relative relations everything.
Yin and yang relation is the binary math of I Ching for example.
All the rules of the Traditional Medicine Chinese for example can be demostrated with I Ching Math
Math and geometry are also used in symbolics sciences.
I-king with binary math, Astrology and tarots use math symbols for explain many priciples.
We find it in Pitagora, Platone, Plotino, Giordano Bruno
In haxe with static type system, dce and inling function we haven't this problem if we use haxe libraries.
The libraries can be really big or little, but dce inject only classes and methods used.
Same thing can be made with scala.js and clojure using google closure.
Meditation today is a term must abused with many differente significances.
Meditation is a state of conscious. The tecnics of meditation are used for create the condition for the manifestation of this state.
Mediation can't be learned in a book. The best mode is learning it from a master. And one of the best clean way for me is Zen with zazen.
In yoga sutra of Patanjali mediation is considered one of the high level of yoga, level that is reached after a long practice of other yoga levels (asana,pranayama,prathyara and dharana)
Two way data bind is fast because a graph of binds and dependency is created. So you can have atomic updates while in virtual dom you must rerun all the tree.
See vue.js and ractive
But is also true that 2way double binding take more memory that virtual dom.
Two-way binding CAN be fast, however, due to various issues, Angular's only option was Dirty Checking, which is sloooow.
And no, a depgraph doesn't make it fast. What can make it fast is firing less events, using better triggers, and basically handling it exactly the way that Angular didn't.
VDOM can help, but really not much. However you want to put it, two-way binding is costly, and it should be avoided whenever possible, or minimized by catching multiple bind events at a higher up element on the tree (see http://lhorie.github.io/mithril-blog/asymmetrical-data-bindi...)
Just spraying it everywhere, the way Angular encourages, with no optimization (like the aforementioned asymetrical bindings), should be considered an antipattern.
Are you talking about Computed Values? Because Data Binding has nothing to do with that. Not really.
In any case, Computed values make 2 way binding more expensive, because you have to run a depgraph on all the vars that are part of the binding network, every time an event fires. This is O(n). This is only one reason why Computed Values, as implemented in JS, are a Bad Idea. If you have to update a var on event fire, okay, but leaving the things everywhere is slow and ungainly. If you instead change the var to a function call, you can optimize far better, because you only have to update when the value is read.
In conclusion, if you want to polymorphism between functions and variables, treat everything as a function, not as a variable.
At least, I think that's a response to your question. Your English is pretty broken, so it's hard to tell. Sorry.
Not sure what you mean "rerun all the tree", if you change a a state variable that is added as a prop in another component it has to rerun refresh on those components, but only those components, so not all the tree. Also not sure how this relates to atomic updates, with a flux pattern each state change is associated with ui changes propogating down, the difference to angular is, they aren't supposed to be allowed to propogate up, which you can do in angular since there isn't necessarily a central state store and since there is two way binding children or parent can change the variable.
It's easy enough to write two way binding into a react state variable, it's just nice to not have it happen by default since having state able to change anywhere in the app can get confusing.
A virtual dom is stupid about the view is only an algorithm that diff 2 trees. A data binding can create a graph of knowledge about the view and can create the best and fast mode for update the view.
Library like ractive and vue are the best tools for create animations in svg or where there are many updates of view
Yes but generally speak you must do all this things manually and also optimizatio s and binding you must know what updates. In a real 2way db this is automatic also for performance.
No, the perf's pretty bad if you do a lot of binding, and the manual binding gives you a better sense of what your app is doing, the performance tradeoffs you're making, and more control over an area where you'll probably have to optimize.
Mmm no sorry i don't agree. For me virtual dom is only a tree generated from code,diffed and batched. Speaking only of the algoritm.
For me databining templates libraries are vue and ractive.
See this 2 links for comparison.
https://vuejs.org/guide/comparison.html
That's true, but what I meant was that all VDOM based systems have binding to some degree, and where optimization is required, explicit is better than implicit.
React is good for complex app desktop but not if you need performant and fast interface with 60 fps otherall in mobile.
Last virtual dom like snabbdom preact and inferno are really fast also on mobile.
And inferno and preact are compatible with react component.
Vue.js 2.0 use an intelligent mixin of reactive data graph dependency and virtual dom separating the static and dynamics parts of template.
Monkberry.js translate a template in pure javascript function with createElements and update nodes. Function that can be optimized from the jit
Also haxe have nice features like scala.js bu have a c like syntax conservative and is more practical.
Big interaction with externs js with external types definition, dynamics and untyped blocks. And can interact with npm, webpack, closure and browserify.
Js code generated is really small
