You're of course welcome to share your experience here, but please don't call names ("woo"). It's against the site guidelines because it significantly degrades discussion. We can all make our substantive points without such swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Completely disagree. If the "woo" you describe is so ineffective, placebos wouldn't be a thing. Sure, there are problems that may require some kind of invasive treatment, but there are also a lot that we seem to include in that group that can be treated with much less invasive procedures.

David Epstein touches on this here [0]: "A unique study at five orthopedic clinics in Finland compared APM with “sham surgery.” That is, surgeons took patients with knee pain to operating rooms, made incisions, faked surgeries, and then sewed them back up. Neither the patients nor the doctors evaluating them knew who had received real surgeries and who was sporting a souvenir scar. A year later, there was nothing to tell them apart. The sham surgery performed just as well as real surgery. Except that, in the long run, the real surgery may increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. Also, it’s expensive, and, while APM is exceedingly safe, surgery plus physical therapy has a greater risk of side effects than just physical therapy."

[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but...

Placebos don't fix issues, if they would, we would sell half placebo pills to save money. They sometimes have some temporary effect.

If placebos worked, we could not use then to gage treatment effectiveness in trials. And treatment passes trial only if it does better then placebo.

>>If placebos worked, we could not use then to gage treatment effectiveness in trials.

What? The reason placebos are used in trials is because they work.

The treatment is considered working when it produces better results then placebo. When the treatment is undistinguishable from placebo, then the conclusion of trial is that "improvements are result of chance rather then treatment".

Placebo is used so that patients, doctors and anyone else is not affected by their expectations/wishes of whether treatment should or should not work.

The whole point is to measure actual physical improvements. You can't replace real treatment by placebos and expect them to have the same results - clinical trials are done so that this is guaranteed to not work with drugs that passed them.

The conclusion is most definitely not "improvements are result of chance rather than treatment". You've also used quotes here but there doesn't appear to be any reference so I can only assume you're quoting yourself :)

I assume you didn't read (or perhaps chose to disregard) the article I referenced in my original comment as that provides evidence to the contrary of what you are claiming. Another much shorter article that you may like to read states "Experts have concluded that reacting to a placebo is not proof that a certain treatment doesn't work, but rather that another, non-pharmacological mechanism may be present." [0]

[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-th...

I used to think about things exactly in the same terms as you do, rejecting anything that didn't have "strong" scientific backing in peer reviewed journals. I considered things like meditation complete bullshit quackery and because of this cynical view I ignored things that could have given me significant help at the time I needed them.

Of course when you eventually hit rock bottom you try everything available and then I realized that ignoring all "non-scientific" evidence is not the correct way to evaluate things.

I had similar experience a couple of times. It is about the mind or you are lazy or exaggerating until eventually actual physical cause is found by random. And it makes massive difference.

And then you find out the fix was available all along. But, they would have to take your issues seriously instead of just dismissing it and blame your brain.

So how do you interpret the results of this study? Patients who went through what you call "woo" did report less pain.

He does not. He was misdiagnosed therefore "woo" is bullshit. Sound logic If I've ever seen one.

Please don't be snarky or take HN threads further into flamewar. We're trying for the opposite here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why are you assuming that there is no such thing as psychosomatic pain just because yous isn't? Such an unjustified leap.

50 years ago I’m sure regular doctors would laugh at the idea of treating anxiety disorders with meditation instead of meds, electroshock or whatever.

Is there not enough space for both the Woo and our usual western methods?

The patient journey could be: diagnosis, imaging, woo (if appropriate), physio, chiro and if need be, surgery.

Well, in my experience meditation alone was not effective at all for my anxiety.

Actual doctors (in the US and in SE Asia) put me on medication for it and that was effective.

I don't think many "regular doctors" are telling people to just meditate for their anxiety...

Surely you can respect that not all solutions are based in pharma or surgical intervention.

Take depression for example. Some people might have a chemical imbalance. Some might be in terrible marriage or struggling with other trauma.

The idea here is pretty simple and not particularly crazy: Some people have problems that can be solved best with treatment other than drugs or surgery.

It's usually a combination of things. For me, my anxiety was causing me to not do things that could have ultimately helped me have less anxiety. Meditating didn't cure that. I had to go on meds to get over that initial anxiety and now I don't need the meds as much

Sure meditation can help some people but I don't think it's as effective as a lot of people seem to think

The corresponding author on this is a very serious scientist, most of whose work is in metabolic resuscitation and cardiac arrest. It's cool to see him applying his skills to this leading cause of disability and suffering. I guarantee you it isn't just "woo".

Not all pain is associated with an existent physical injury. For example I had tears in my achilles last years which have since healed but I still feel pain when I walk. Look into fibromyalgia and nociplastic pain if you want more info. The tldr is that our bodies can react to danger/injuries by increasing our pain sensitivity, which means that minor activities which pre injury caused no pain can later cause debilitating pain even when physically healed. This is why pain is now being explored through a biopsychosocial lens.

It's woo to call anything that doesn't fit into your personal model of reality as woo.