DrP

I'll apologise for calling you a dick if you apologise for your ignorant, moronic rant in post 60. Although it seems you feel justified in yourself for thinking in that way. It's quite sad how someone can go so far off the rails with reason and basic communication skills. Do you make many friends on line?

WHAT you-tube vid? Copy and past the link or type it out like several people have explained to you how to do. Honestly, your whining in post 60 about not getting any help is pathetic - several people have explained how to use the copy and paste button. Are you trolling for fun? I'm out - I can't talk to this dick. Too many chips on his shoulder and hardly a brain cell to use a computer properly or explain what he means or be civil to people trying to help. So rude and just fdumb. Now with the science bashing - what a prick. lol.

Hey - I am sorry for the confusion, but I think you are right Argent. This must be Stromatolite. Forgive me, I remembered it as Strombolite or I wrote it down wrong in the shop. It is pretty amazing to think of it as billions of years old though and some of the earliest life forms on the planet.

No-one has said that the effect seen isn't increasing - we just asked for a citation to support the claim. Velocity Boy said that he thought the statement inaccurate, but not wrong. All of this misunderstanding would have been avoided if you linked to or at least quoted from a link or typed out a url to the source of your information. Lets hear your guess as to why. That's how discussion works. It isn't raw meat - I have told you why I think it is the case and you are free to debunk what I wrote, to agree with it or to disagree with it. That's how communication works. IF you claim for a fact that you KNOW why without any support, then yes, you might have a hard time.... but why would you do that. It is well known that the effect isn't completely understood - but that doesn't mean brain fairies are responsible for it. ;-) EDIT to reply to the edit in post 42. QUOTE:" DrP - how can your response to #2 make sense?" I reckon that the drugs aren't doing so well in tests vs the placebo because people are showing a more positive response to the placebo so the benchmark for those drugs has risen (if the claim that responses to placebos have become more positive is true). I am not saying this is a fact - I am suggesting it as a possibility. The reason that the effect itself seems to be happening more positively is due to people actually being aware of the effect nowadays because information is more readily available. The fact that the placebo works better when the patient believes he has a chance of getting the drug is evidence (imo) that belief and positive thinking go a long way to helping with the whole, very complex, healing process of the body. So - if the patients these days are aware of the placebo effect - they might start to believe that they can heal better whether they get the drug or not (as they know that the placebo effect is a real thing), thus - the placebo pills in trials are giving higher positives. Again - not fact - just my line of thinking - which I believe is what you asked for.

So the answer to the two questions you posted is still the same: 1 - no one has said they aren't giving better results - so why WOULDN'T the drug companies research it - seems obvious they would because it works and could be VERY useful if we understood it. 2 - Older drugs could actually be failing as we become immune to them (Just speculation)... but what is more likely imo is that because the placebo is getting more positives, this then would give the drugs being tested a stiffer benchmark to test against. So what is your point? What do you think is going on?

Why wouldn't the drug companies research it? It clearly is a real effect, so it would be worth understanding it. Of course it warrants research. re "only in the US" - this isn't the result of just a single test is it? lol. Anyway - I guess that's why we need a link. "already answered the question DrP"... Where? What post was it I cannot see it. You gave your own opinion as to why the placebo effect has seen an increase in successful results in recent trials? I think I must have missed that.

OK - lets start again. Dave - why do YOU think placebos seem more effective these days compared to trials in the past? Personally I think it is because people know that they have an effect from the results of earlier trials. Part of the reason they work is because we believe we have a chance of getting the drug that will make us better.... So - knowing that a placebo can make you better as well as the actual drug could instil confidence in the patient that they WILL get something from the trial even if they do not get the drug and thus their health improves through this belief regardless to whether or not they received the placebo or the drug. Do not ask me to explain the placebo effect - no one can. I have always thought it was due to strong belief/faith... believe it hard enough and you can get well - prayers works in the same way I think. Regarding your points above: 1 - no-one has said that they aren't giving more positive results. 2 - If placebos are getting better results in all tests then we would expect all drugs to take a hit in their performance against the placebo no? I thought that would be obvious.

Yea - that's what I mean - if you know it can work then it might have a higher chance of working further - thus the increase in success rate of them.... maybe. QUOTE: "Are you stupid?" OK - I don't mind a mod warning for saying this - but I am just finding you obnoxious right now. OK - I have resisted the desire to use bad language. So I probably won't get a warning.

"if dave can't add a link...paint a target on his back" Not providing a link is not why you have a target. Your obvious misunderstanding of how any of this works and your soap box style ascertaining that you are right when told you are wrong along with the bossiness of some of your posts is why you are considered as someone who doesn't know anything about this. Nothing at all to do with not providing a link. I do not need to google it - I know what goes on with placebos (well - up to a point, I don't think they are fully understood) Googling about it will just give HUNDREDS of pages of stuff from many differing sources claiming all sorts. If you have a specific claim then post a link. Copy and paste it or type it out. Maybe they are getting better because people believe they have a chance of getting better even with a placebo. It is know these days that the placebo effect is a very real thing... believing it could work is one of the main reason it does work.... better knowledge of this fact is probably why it works more than it used too.

"tell them over the phone to try a placebo" Placebos don't work like that - you have to be tricked into thinking it may have a chance of working... it is basically faith. The mind believes it has a chance of getting better and the body tries hard to follow suit and comply. I think that's how they work anyway.... you can't just say to someone 'try a placebo'.

So what? That has nothing to do with quantum physics and it is a mechanical artefact of the evolution of the brain. It is how we work. When we empathise with another, we look at their face, their body language, we see a smile and think 'happy' and feel a slight copy of that emotion - that is empathy. You can say that this is due to mirror neurons, but they fire because of info fed to them from sensory perception from the eyes, ears and nose etc.. . It isn't a mind link between the 2 brains. Frankly to suggest that is just idiotic as we have tested for that stuff for many years and never found a single bit of proof for it. There is nothing that suggests that at all. The only ones that claim mind links, telepathy and the supernatural are these new age morons that like to mix scientific sounding words into their word salads to try to further confuse their mark. Basically - people that pedal such nonsense either know that they are talking crap but just don't care because it makes them money, or they are the fools that believe it and part with their money on so called alternative treatments and books about made up crap. Same with homeopathy peddlers - all of them are either fools or con men. Which camp are you in?

Even if it is something to do with this limbic system - it is still biological. That quantum garbage is nonsense. QUOTE" We already know...independent from evolutionary traits" - No it isn't - that's what we've been arguing about through the thread. It is rubbish unless you can support it with some evidence - which you can't, because it isn't true.... Just shouting "Oh yes it is!" isn't going to win the argument.

It is not impossible that it is another name for the same or a similar thing. It is definitely supposed to be fossilised algae though (2.5 to 3.5 BYO) - not micro fossil bacteria. I'll check it out later when I am not a work and try to find a link with info about it for you. I bought it in a fossil shop and the guy is not a new age type - he is a serious fossil guy. I think my sample is Australian.

Looks like a con at first glance - They sell you a machine that "structures" your water. Sounds like nonsense. It claims that the water near a hydrophilic surface 'structures' in some way, like it does in ice with it's H-bonds. Even if it did it would loose that structure when drunk (and why would it be better for you?). It is nonsense, like homeopathy from a first glance at it. Not sure I want to waste my time researching it further, we'll see it pop up in the medical journals if it is real.

You are right about the pressure. It was sealed at ground level and the pressure was higher. Going to the mountain top reduces the air pressure outside of the bag and it will swell. I am pretty certain it doesn't get hotter as you go up a mountain - quite the opposite at high altitude. I don't think temperature has anything to do with it.

No - I have some Strombolite, which is fossilised algae. Looking up that stromatolite it suggests that that is micro fossil rock formed from bacteria.

I have a piece of strombolite which is about 2 or 3 BYO. Interesting stuff about them feeding off the iron in the thermal vents.

That capitol Sigma is a summation of the function of P for all values of P between 0 and infinity. Not sure how to solve it though - I haven't done that for years. I'm sure someone else can point you in the right direction - there are some good maths guys here.

"projections"? Again - what do you mean by this? You seem to be asking me a question, but I do not understand it. What projections? What are you talking about?

OK zap - I hear all that - but I am not convinced the situation in Georgia was as easily defined as one side good the other evil - it was complicated and I am not convinced anyone outside of the area knows exactly what went on. The Russian government decided they should step in as the conflict was on their border - I do not blame them. Also, I never labelled 'everything' as propaganda... I said to be wary of all the negatives you hear about Russia. Neither did I justify what they did by saying 'the Americans did it too'. I just said that it was complicated and that they aren't the only ones in the world making mistakes... although I am still not convinced Georgia was a mistake for them. They got a lot of stick for bombing a hospital in Syria.... but there is no mention of the British or American bombs that have killed many civilians in the conflict. It is really transparent and it is failing. I am pretty certain they would not have intentionally targeted a hospital.... unless it was full of combatants using the place as a shield or something. Regarding how 'wonderful' they are according to your politicians and you news networks, that doesn't concern me really - you elected the leaders in your country and you'll have to live with their ideals and the filters they put on your news. It would be nice to know the actual facts, but I do not know if you will be free to hear them if your leader has his way and starts censoring everything and only releasing 'news' that he wants you to hear. We have had Russian war planes buzzing through our space in the last few years - testing us out for whatever reason, pushing to see what they can get away with. Are their motives evil? How should I know - they probably think you are evil for being against them and causing regime changes and destabilising many governments. Why are you against them? Cold war on communism was it? I thought that was over and you won. Hey - sorry - I am dragging on and I don't want to derail the thread. Maybe I am just waffling, but I take a lot of world news with a pinch of salt these days. Honestly, I am on your side. ;-) They have been responsible for a lot of confusion recently, which I think they have done deliberately to cause uncertainty.

What I mean is ChY, that the war (in the 50's? before my time) was won - the North were defeated and it was all but over when China joined the war and pushed the borders back to what they were before it started. If they hadn't of done that then things would be very different. Disclaimer - this is how I read into it when I watched a couple of documentaries about it a few years back and done some reading. The actual chain of events are probably more complicated. What I got from it was that the North had been beaten, but China stepped in to 'save' them.

The 'North Korea problem' was created by China. North Korea wouldn't even exist without them, it would just be Korea as it is today in the south but united across the whole country. The Chinese saw to that when they joined North Korea in the war and reset the border to before the war even happened. It was over before they stepped in. I cannot reason why really, only that they did not want friends of the USA on their border. Fear and paranoia winning out again I am afraid. Frankly the Chinese are responsible and should be embarrassed by what is happening in North Korea, although it seems like they don't care. I would be interested to know what popular opinion about the Koreans is in China.

Not sure it's the same. But I get your point. The Ossetians though were a whole people and they asked for help. They thanked Russia afterwards. Lets not go Russia bashing for the sake of it, there is enough 'fake news' and propaganda about as there is. If there were civil wars on the border of the USA you can't tell me America would sit by without picking a side. Hey, they pick sides and join in in wars all around the globe as it is, even when they are on the other side of the planet, so I think it is a bit harsh judging the Russians for stepping into conflicts taking place on their border. It just seems that whatever they do they get branded as evil - I see this as propaganda.

ahh! maybe it's a language problem. Maybe English is ALO's 2nd or 3rd language or something like re-reading his post. That's probably why it reads as gobbledegook with the wrong use of certain words, like 'condition' and 'dimension'.

Re Georgia, I don't think the Russians invaded - they were invited by the South Ossetians who asked them for help because they were being attacked by the Georgians.. anyway - it's over now. The whole media coverage of the events were very biased against the Russians. Which make me sceptical of the actual causes of the troubles in the Ukraine. I never know what to believe when I hear reports of Russian aggression.