Placebos work -- even without deception

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was mostly addressing Epimetheus, with whom you seemed to agree.

[Telarus]

Soooo what? Isn't that the point of the study? To better understand the placebo effect?

I kind of think that maybe you don't understand the placebo effect.

Yeah, you're right. But, I guess I figured that this isn't/shouldn't be news. I've always thought the placebo effect was more somatic than psychological anyway.

The general understanding most people have of the placebo effect, afaik, is that in order for it to happen the patient has to believe that what they're taking is somehow a biomedically active drug. This study suggest that general understanding may be at least partially incorrect/incomplete.

The idea that a placebo is effective even when the patient knows there's nothing going on in terms of biochemical effects of the pill they're taking is pretty newsworthy.

I kindof wonder just how many of the patients didn't believe them when told it was a placebo, or didn't understand the concepts and thought it really did something anyway.

Then of course the idea that placebos can do things is part of our culture, so they might have thought it could do something *because* it was a placebo.

Req, are you saying that this is a situation where we can't even 'double blind' our way our of bias?

[Epimetheus]

To dismiss the results as being meaningless or insignificant because it's "still just placebo effect" seems to blithely dismiss placebo effect as being without medical value, when the reason it's being studied in the first place is because it's been proven to have medical value.

Uhh...I dunno how you read that from what I said. I didn't say "just" or dismiss anything. I was trying to make the point that this doesn't reveal some new psychosomatic process separate from placebo effect - rather, it reveals another level or aspect of the placebo effect. That's how it seems to me, anyway. I find it very interesting.

[Phox]

If nothing else, this study has taught us that we can all agree with each other and still argue. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To dismiss the results as being meaningless or insignificant because it's "still just placebo effect" seems to blithely dismiss placebo effect as being without medical value, when the reason it's being studied in the first place is because it's been proven to have medical value.

Uhh...I dunno how you read that from what I said. I didn't say "just" or dismiss anything. I was trying to make the point that this doesn't reveal some new psychosomatic process separate from placebo effect - rather, it reveals another level or aspect of the placebo effect. That's how it seems to me, anyway. I find it very interesting.

It is very interesting. I did misread what you said, sorry about that.

[Cainad (dec.)]

To dismiss the results as being meaningless or insignificant because it's "still just placebo effect" seems to blithely dismiss placebo effect as being without medical value, when the reason it's being studied in the first place is because it's been proven to have medical value.

Uhh...I dunno how you read that from what I said. I didn't say "just" or dismiss anything. I was trying to make the point that this doesn't reveal some new psychosomatic process separate from placebo effect - rather, it reveals another level or aspect of the placebo effect. That's how it seems to me, anyway. I find it very interesting.

Oooohh.

Cainad,
durr

If nothing else, this study has taught us that we can all agree with each other and still argue. 

And that's the true meaning of Christmas.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If nothing else, this study has taught us that we can all agree with each other and still argue. 

I like this quote so much I want to make it my Facebook update!

[Phox]

If nothing else, this study has taught us that we can all agree with each other and still argue. 

I like this quote so much I want to make it my Facebook update!

Go for it. 

And that's the true meaning of Christmas.

Of course. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I combined both of your posts and said "The true meaning of Christmas is that we can all agree with each other and still find something to argue about."

[Phox]

I combined both of your posts and said "The true meaning of Christmas is that we can all agree with each other and still find something to argue about."

Awesome. 

[Requia ☣]

Soooo what? Isn't that the point of the study? To better understand the placebo effect?

I kind of think that maybe you don't understand the placebo effect.

Yeah, you're right. But, I guess I figured that this isn't/shouldn't be news. I've always thought the placebo effect was more somatic than psychological anyway.

The general understanding most people have of the placebo effect, afaik, is that in order for it to happen the patient has to believe that what they're taking is somehow a biomedically active drug. This study suggest that general understanding may be at least partially incorrect/incomplete.

The idea that a placebo is effective even when the patient knows there's nothing going on in terms of biochemical effects of the pill they're taking is pretty newsworthy.

I kindof wonder just how many of the patients didn't believe them when told it was a placebo, or didn't understand the concepts and thought it really did something anyway.

Then of course the idea that placebos can do things is part of our culture, so they might have thought it could do something *because* it was a placebo.

Req, are you saying that this is a situation where we can't even 'double blind' our way our of bias?

I wouldn't say its impossible, just that I'm not sure how to do it.  But part of science is acknowledging that you can never truly prove a theory correct, only that it is correct to the extent of the best available data.  With enough time and effort, that point can be reached even without a double blind study.

[Jasper]

Well, shit.

brb, medical rituals.

[BabylonHoruv]

Soooo what? Isn't that the point of the study? To better understand the placebo effect?

I kind of think that maybe you don't understand the placebo effect.

Yeah, you're right. But, I guess I figured that this isn't/shouldn't be news. I've always thought the placebo effect was more somatic than psychological anyway.

The general understanding most people have of the placebo effect, afaik, is that in order for it to happen the patient has to believe that what they're taking is somehow a biomedically active drug. This study suggest that general understanding may be at least partially incorrect/incomplete.

The idea that a placebo is effective even when the patient knows there's nothing going on in terms of biochemical effects of the pill they're taking is pretty newsworthy.

Yeah, but I've always thought of it as the idea of a placebo is to trick the body, not necessarily the mind. Deceiving the mind is helpful to that end, I just never thought it was completely necessary.

Back to the topic at hand, something that may not be accounted for is if the people participating in the study think they are being given a real drug, but being told it's a placebo. Say, a person has a good week, right after they start the placebo. They might think that it's a double dupe. I mean, really, who would tell you they were giving you a placebo, unless they wanted you to think it wouldn't work? Hence my earlier statement of "confirmation bias". If someone deceives themselves into thinking the placebo isn't really a placebo, then how do we interpret that?

Giving someone real drugs while telling them they are a placebo would be illegal (well, unless they had signed a form consenting to that sort of thing)  giving them a placebo and telling them it is real drugs is not (not for a study anyways, it is for a doctor)

[Phox]

Soooo what? Isn't that the point of the study? To better understand the placebo effect?

I kind of think that maybe you don't understand the placebo effect.

Yeah, you're right. But, I guess I figured that this isn't/shouldn't be news. I've always thought the placebo effect was more somatic than psychological anyway.

The general understanding most people have of the placebo effect, afaik, is that in order for it to happen the patient has to believe that what they're taking is somehow a biomedically active drug. This study suggest that general understanding may be at least partially incorrect/incomplete.

The idea that a placebo is effective even when the patient knows there's nothing going on in terms of biochemical effects of the pill they're taking is pretty newsworthy.

Yeah, but I've always thought of it as the idea of a placebo is to trick the body, not necessarily the mind. Deceiving the mind is helpful to that end, I just never thought it was completely necessary.

Back to the topic at hand, something that may not be accounted for is if the people participating in the study think they are being given a real drug, but being told it's a placebo. Say, a person has a good week, right after they start the placebo. They might think that it's a double dupe. I mean, really, who would tell you they were giving you a placebo, unless they wanted you to think it wouldn't work? Hence my earlier statement of "confirmation bias". If someone deceives themselves into thinking the placebo isn't really a placebo, then how do we interpret that?

Giving someone real drugs while telling them they are a placebo would be illegal (well, unless they had signed a form consenting to that sort of thing)  giving them a placebo and telling them it is real drugs is not (not for a study anyways, it is for a doctor)

Well, yes, but the question is do the people participating know and understand that? My concern was not that the placebo was a real drug, but that  the people taking it perceived it to be.

[MMIX]

If they can establish exactly what is causing the effect they believe they have identified then maybe we are going to have to reconsider aspects of our current definitions of what a "real drug" actually is . . . god knows we may even have to accept that there may be something "scientific" in homeopathy; crazy as that sounds