reply
- Feature
- Like
the frontiers of human ability in this area were documented early with jesus , " as a man thinketh .." the trick is to believe , this is why he was so pivotal , his belief was so strong , you got swept along in his wake ..baby steps , for the average man
reply
- Feature
- Like
Well, placebos have their place in medical research and what not however, I think the harm from them comes when doctor's neglect patient care hoping the Placebo affect will work (i've had this happen). They'll under prescribe, prescribe something harmless but ineffective, or simply not run the tests needed to make an uniquevical diagnosis, and hope the problem goes away on it's own. Yes there is the fact that if someone thinks they're going to get better they're more likely to get better but there are some people that the placebo effect just doen'st work on and knowingly trying to dupe patients to speed up an office visit, wanting to suffle difficult patients out, or simply not putting in the time needed to take care of a condition is unethical. So placebo effect- effective in a labratory setting, dangerous in real life.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Whatever works. Good thoughts can go a long way. Prayer is just a placebo and people swear it works.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Yes. That's what makes double-blind placebo controlled studies the gold standard... We know placebos usually have a statistically significant effect (tho this seems to be highly conditional on many things, including symptoms, personality, etc) on the general population. Sometimes this is refered to as the 'treatment' effect. Or, just actively doing something to 'treat' symptoms seems to alleviate them, even if that 'something' isn't an inherently effective solution. Although, paradoxically, sometimes the opposite can be true (called the 'nocebo' effect); trying to 'treat' certain conditions actually can stimulate less favourable outcomes. So medical research usually compares efficacy against a 'placebo.' This will do a couple of things simultaneously: 1.) Everyone gets treated the 'same,' exteriorly, therefore accounting for much behavioural-based variance (everyone goes to the clinic @ the same time, double-blind studies mean not even the doctors know who is getting the placebo 'control' and who is active 'treatment.') 2.) More data can be extrapolated about, not just a particular kind of treatment, but about the disease itself. Especially if a trial has: 'active test' group, 'DB placebo' control group, and 'No treatment' control group. A no treatment group is used as another type of control, accounting for what's called in stats 'regression to the mean' and variances like the body's ability to heal itself without intervention. This allows researchers to gauge the placebo effect for a particular disorder or set of symptoms. Usually in debriefing (that's explaining to study participants what's going on, and getting feedback from them regarding their experiences.... *not* a kinky kind of 'doctor patient privilege'), participants will be asked to predict whether or not they had a placebo. This gives researchers yet more insight into potential psychological reasons for effective/non-effectiveness (research is pretty clear that if you 'believe' something is working, you're more likely to self-report a favourable outcome). Of course, not everyone *loves* the PCDB studies. There are ethical considerations about not being truthful and upfront with patients about the treatment they receive. Also, pushing drugs is big business. There are ways of manipulating the PCDB to make potential treatments look more beneficial than they actually are. WHEW.... wow. Went a little crazy on this one. This was a role/game I used play a lot... it's been a while since those dusty boxes of knowledge have seen the light of day. Guess it needed to get out in the sun for a bit. Thanks for the question.
reply
- Feature
- Like
