Why Do People Keep Falling For Things That Don't Work?

Very good one, I just don't get why you don't trust randomised controlled trials when it's about, for example, turmeric. There are hundreds of them. Aren't you falling on the same biases you attribute to others, that no evidence is good enough to convince you against your biases?

Thank you so much for your voice of reason and sanity; there's so little of either in the world!

Thanks Rohin. T'was a well put video explaining the mechanism fallacy or bio plausibility fallacy that fools so many people every year around the world.

I hope this message reaches the maximum numbers of people possible, they have to know sexy buzzwords are not so sexy irl after all.

"hey I see you reaching to choose a different video" I swear this came up less than 2s after I'd exited full screen

As a nurse with osteoarthritis I am aware that some things I take to help have no scientific basis. I do take them anyway because it makes me feel better and that helps me live life a little better.

Just wanted to pop in and say that although I appreciate the message and agree with most of it, I felt that your approach to the topic could have been made more approachable. The exact people who would benefit from hearing this are exactly those who would feel criticized by it or made to feel like they’re dumb, ignorant or gullible. In fact, I’m sure there are many out there who, although they don’t know the mechanism for it, feel like what they’re doing is working. And it is either a) placebo effect, b) an actual effect we just don’t understand yet or c) some combination of the above. But whether a), b) or c), the patient is happy. They shouldn’t feel ashamed if their problem seems solved as long as there’s no harm done, and that’s probably something that should be said at the beginning instead of the end so that such viewers allow themselves to be more open to listening.
I work in clinical trials actually. It’s easier to hold up RCTs on a pedestal when you haven’t watched someone conducting the day to day of one or listened in on discussions on what goes in the report, but it is absolutely the best we have. At the same time, I am a fan of chiropractic because PT has worked but only when I was actively doing it (difficult to maintain) but chiropractic has passively helped me feel “less bad” (not exactly better) and is something i can maintain. I know there is no science to explain why it should help and yet I wish to reap the benefits. I’ve stopped for 2 years and gotten worse, and have seen practitioners that were doing almost (but noticeably not exactly) the same thing but were not effective too.
Simultaneously, I too reject the idea of vit D supplementation to “prevent” something. And yet, when I went to see my PCP recently, I was totally prepared for them to give me high dose vit D or something again and I was so done with it that I planned to “no thanks” it – to my surprise, she suggested that generally maintaining higher vit D levels is recommended for RA symptom control, and to take normal gummies. I’m under 40, I’ll try ANYTHING this harmless to help with my RA symptoms or improve my long term prognosis – getting more outdoor exercise really isn’t likely to help with my finger joint pain.
Lastly, I have also tried keto. I am under 125lbs, it is really hard to lose 5lbs. To this day, it is the only diet that has ever made me lose anything close to 5lbs, even when I did caloric restriction. I tracked the calories during keto too, and they weren’t actually lower. I don’t do it anymore – being consistent long term is key to any diet. Maybe I am my own experiment sometimes (n=1), but you are spot on about evidence based medicine.

So, if you are saying that weight loss is only a matter of calories, then a number of thinkers on the subject, such as Gary Taubes, Tim Noakes, Paul Mason could argue the contrary case. And, I would expect them to win. The amount of heat(calories) that can be derived from food is not the same as the amount of energy that the body can extract.The essential characteristic of scientific thinking is the matching of the strength of a belief with the strength of evidence that supports that belief. Easier said than done.As difficult for you, apparently, as it is for me.

I was really into Huberman's Podcasts for a while, even though a lot of his recommended protocols seemed too thinly supported and too laborious to try.

In my experience, his best recommendation is to get sunlight in your eyes in the morning, it might be all placebo but it really makes me feel awake and it's also just nice to be outside and smell fresh air.

Thanks for the video. I’m not sure I understand your points around mask wearing. Do you believe that masks (excluding N95) have no impact on the spread of Covid, or is it that their impact is probably not high enough to justify mandatory usage?

So should i not take advice from Hubmerman?

Whilst generally I’m inclined to agree that these things are bogus.
My dad suffered extreme headaches and migraines near constantly for years, and he has every scan, every test, Botox pain medication. Nothing helped!
It wasn’t until after several years of trying the standard methods he decided to go to a chiropractor as a last hail mary – his headaches were resolved. He goes back every couple of months and it has been the only thing to consistently help him feel better. How can this be?

I've studied both psychology, medicine and have a biotech degree. Still, there have been instances where I felt science hadn't gotten things quite right. Sometimes it was that I felt that an explanation didn't make sense. Sometimes I could guess how things would play out in my field in the future. Sometimes I've called out "science" that was not very scientific (sometimes pointless research can go on for DECADES)

And still, some things I don't quite understand. One case is homeopathic stuff. I suddenly had a stuffy nose all the time and did an allergy test (prick test, at a legitimate doctor's office). It showed I reacted very strongly to most animal fur. The doctor told me that that sucks, but since it's not a strong allergy, I really need to consider whether I wanted to take vaccines against it, as it came with side effects. She also mentioned there wete now some homeopathic pills… thwy seemed to work, but she has no clue why. She asked me: do I know what homeopathic pills are. I said I do – they're pills with basically not a drop of active ingredient, and if there's an effect, it's a placebo effect. She said that they are likely to be a total waste of money, but they're also very cheap. I said I can try, just because they really ARE very cheap. Used them for half a year, and allergies were no longer detectable.

I wish I could explain it. Like: was the first allergy test wrong? Was the second wrong? How does a homeopathic preparation get into a hospital's pharmacy? Why did my nose stop stuffing up (correlation with what?)? I can't see how you can "convince yourself" out of allergies! Is it common for people to have transient immunological reactions??? Did the medication actually have some active components because it's not tightly regulated? The weirdest thing is: I'm not the only person thay has experienced an effect (expressed by people using it, and no, it's not from reviews, but actual people I've met) from this particular homeopathic medication, and it's just so weird… I know there have been studies of microdosing nut protein for allergic chilsren, but if the microdosing atopped, the allergy came back. Why wpuld I be any different? Is there a hospital-wide scam? I would really like an explanation