A fool and his money?

sand_hun

Ath_Wat said:

The same way people can "in good conscience" break into a pensioner's house and steal their savings.  Conscience doesn't enter into it, they are dishonest, selfish people who care nothing for the well being of others.

You should regret paying for that "service" as you've just poured your money into the pocket of someone who was laughing at you all the way through and still is.

Ugh. After reading all the comments here I do now regret it somewhat.

Her next Google review won't be quite so favourable. Up till now, every single person has left 5 stars.

Ergates

sand_hun said:

The thing that disappoints me about this is that how can someone in good conscience go about giving nutritional advice that impacts the way someone might live their life? While the word 'allergic' wasn't specifically used, I was told to avoid yeast extract entirely (bakers yeast, not brewers) and to cut down on coffee, MSG & artificial sweeteners.

TBH I took the whole thing with a pinch of salt anyway. Guess I'll wait for my skin/blood tests and see what comes up.

Partly because a lot of the time they actually believe the nonsense they're peddling.

Partly because most* of the time the nonsense they're peddling isn't *actively* harmful - whilst it won't help you it won't hurt you either. Cutting down on coffee, MSG and sweeteners and not eating bread isn't going to kill you.  It's probably not going to help you, but it's not actively bad advice either.  Similarly, homeopathic remedies won't help you at all, but they're also not bad for you as they're literally just water dripped onto sugar pills.

The main risk with them (other than being a waste of money) is that they can dissuade people from seeking/heeding actual medical advice.  For an extreme case see Steve Jobs - he died from a cancer that would have been medically treatable if he'd not sought to use alternative therapies until it was too late.  Or all the people dying from covid after trying to use horse dewormer as a treatment.

I would also argue that a side effect of mainstream acceptance of pseudoscience (see Boots selling homeopathic "remedies") is that it undermines the very principals of evidence based reasoning.  When "All available evidence shows that these things don't work but I still believe in them" because a widely accepted viewpoint then anything is game.  See the modern resurgence of flat-earthers.

* Obviously there have been cases where alternative medicines *have* been directly harmful.

soolin

sand_hun said:

The thing that disappoints me about this is that how can someone in good conscience go about giving nutritional advice that impacts the way someone might live their life? While the word 'allergic' wasn't specifically used, I was told to avoid yeast extract entirely (bakers yeast, not brewers) and to cut down on coffee, MSG & artificial sweeteners.

TBH I took the whole thing with a pinch of salt anyway. Guess I'll wait for my skin/blood tests and see what comes up.

They always tell people they have a reaction to  those- I think it is their 'go to' diagnosis as the press routinely pick up on those items as being 'bad' so they just tag it on to other things to look more legitimate. If you are not sure about their advice and then see a press report that aspartane or something is bad for you, it automatically gives the 'practitioner' some credibility.

The one thing I remember from mine was that I could be 'cured' of my rather severe symptoms by drinking flat Cola watered down slightly!

born_again

sand_hun said:

Ugh. After reading all the comments here I do now regret it somewhat.

Her next Google review won't be quite so favourable. Up till now, every single person has left 5 stars.

Which is nicely summed up in the thread title.

People believe in this stuff will post 5 * reviews. 

Pollycat

born_again said:

sand_hun said:

Ugh. After reading all the comments here I do now regret it somewhat.

Her next Google review won't be quite so favourable. Up till now, every single person has left 5 stars.

Which is nicely summed up in the thread title.

People believe in this stuff will post 5 * reviews. 

There is no guarantee that the reviews are genuine anyway.

jimbo6977

Ergates said:

sand_hun said:

The thing that disappoints me about this is that how can someone in good conscience go about giving nutritional advice that impacts the way someone might live their life? While the word 'allergic' wasn't specifically used, I was told to avoid yeast extract entirely (bakers yeast, not brewers) and to cut down on coffee, MSG & artificial sweeteners.

TBH I took the whole thing with a pinch of salt anyway. Guess I'll wait for my skin/blood tests and see what comes up.

Partly because a lot of the time they actually believe the nonsense they're peddling.

Partly because most* of the time the nonsense they're peddling isn't *actively* harmful - whilst it won't help you it won't hurt you either. Cutting down on coffee, MSG and sweeteners and not eating bread isn't going to kill you.  It's probably not going to help you, but it's not actively bad advice either.  Similarly, homeopathic remedies won't help you at all, but they're also not bad for you as they're literally just water dripped onto sugar pills.

The main risk with them (other than being a waste of money) is that they can dissuade people from seeking/heeding actual medical advice.  For an extreme case see Steve Jobs - he died from a cancer that would have been medically treatable if he'd not sought to use alternative therapies until it was too late.  Or all the people dying from covid after trying to use horse dewormer as a treatment.

I would also argue that a side effect of mainstream acceptance of pseudoscience (see Boots selling homeopathic "remedies") is that it undermines the very principals of evidence based reasoning.  When "All available evidence shows that these things don't work but I still believe in them" because a widely accepted viewpoint then anything is game.  See the modern resurgence of flat-earthers.

* Obviously there have been cases where alternative medicines *have* been directly harmful.

The "horse dewormer" in question has applications in humans and is effective as a properly prescribed medicine in the right context. Whether COVID-19 is such a context we will probably never know as the whole matter has been totally politicised.

sand_hun

Pollycat said:

There is no guarantee that the reviews are genuine anyway.

This did cross my mind. However, you can generally get an idea by looking at the style of writing, content and how many previous reviews the person has left.

Some reviewers claim this nutritionist helped them restore a feeling of well-being after years of doctors visits where they were unable to identify the root cause. Every single reviewer claimed she has helped them - maybe a placebo effect going on here.

Ath_Wat

sand_hun said:

Pollycat said:

There is no guarantee that the reviews are genuine anyway.

This did cross my mind. However, you can generally get an idea by looking at the style of writing, content and how many previous reviews the person has left.

Some reviewers claim this nutritionist helped them restore a feeling of well-being after years of doctors visits where they were unable to identify the root cause. Every single reviewer claimed she has helped them - maybe a placebo effect going on here.

Those who choose to visit such a person in the first place are a self selecting group of people pre-disposed to believe it can benefit them.  The chances of many of them turning round after one session and declaring it nonsense are minimal.  You are either just not going to go again or carry on going and fully buy into the cult, whereupon leaving a good review becomes inevitable.

What is a "feeling of well-being", anyway?  Sounds very anomalous.  The inability to identify the root cause of a lack of a "feeling of well-being" would suggest there was no root cause.  How many of the reviews claimed that any diagnosable or identifiable ailments have been cleared up?

soolin

Ath_Wat said:

sand_hun said:

Pollycat said:

There is no guarantee that the reviews are genuine anyway.

This did cross my mind. However, you can generally get an idea by looking at the style of writing, content and how many previous reviews the person has left.

Some reviewers claim this nutritionist helped them restore a feeling of well-being after years of doctors visits where they were unable to identify the root cause. Every single reviewer claimed she has helped them - maybe a placebo effect going on here.

Those who choose to visit such a person in the first place are a self selecting group of people pre-disposed to believe it can benefit them.  The chances of many of them turning round after one session and declaring it nonsense are minimal.  You are either just not going to go again or carry on going and fully buy into the cult, whereupon leaving a good review becomes inevitable.

What is a "feeling of well-being", anyway?  Sounds very anomalous.  The inability to identify the root cause of a lack of a "feeling of well-being" would suggest there was no root cause.  How many of the reviews claimed that any diagnosable or identifiable ailments have been cleared up?

I think many people genuinely benefit from these so called alternative practitioners, but not in the way they think. If you have been calling or visiting your GP and either been fobbed off and given vague future dates for tests then having someone that actually sits and listens to you and tells you that you are not imagining it makes you feel valued. I knew someone, had lots of vague illnesses and basically the GP used to hide when they saw her as she was becoming a nuisance , she went to someone alternative who decided she had all sorts of inbalances, told her to avoid some foods and drink certain things and she was a changed person. Her £30 a fortnight appointment where she sat and talked and described new aches and pains was worth every penny. 

Silvertabby

Ergates said:

sand_hun said:

The thing that disappoints me about this is that how can someone in good conscience go about giving nutritional advice that impacts the way someone might live their life? While the word 'allergic' wasn't specifically used, I was told to avoid yeast extract entirely (bakers yeast, not brewers) and to cut down on coffee, MSG & artificial sweeteners.

TBH I took the whole thing with a pinch of salt anyway. Guess I'll wait for my skin/blood tests and see what comes up.

Partly because a lot of the time they actually believe the nonsense they're peddling.

Partly because most* of the time the nonsense they're peddling isn't *actively* harmful - whilst it won't help you it won't hurt you either. Cutting down on coffee, MSG and sweeteners and not eating bread isn't going to kill you.  It's probably not going to help you, but it's not actively bad advice either.  Similarly, homeopathic remedies won't help you at all, but they're also not bad for you as they're literally just water dripped onto sugar pills.

The main risk with them (other than being a waste of money) is that they can dissuade people from seeking/heeding actual medical advice.  For an extreme case see Steve Jobs - he died from a cancer that would have been medically treatable if he'd not sought to use alternative therapies until it was too late.  Or all the people dying from covid after trying to use horse dewormer as a treatment.

I would also argue that a side effect of mainstream acceptance of pseudoscience (see Boots selling homeopathic "remedies") is that it undermines the very principals of evidence based reasoning.  When "All available evidence shows that these things don't work but I still believe in them" because a widely accepted viewpoint then anything is game.  See the modern resurgence of flat-earthers.

* Obviously there have been cases where alternative medicines *have* been directly harmful.

I have a friend who has always been into 'woo woo'.  When she was diagnosed with stage 1 cancer, she announced that she was going to cure herself by drinking herbal smoothies, from a recipe she found on an American website, and the power of positive thought.

Thankfully, she gave in to her husband's and my nagging, went through a course of conventional treatment, and is now in remission.  But she is adamant that her NHS treatment only worked because of the added power of her (mostly kale) smoothies.