4 ms·
This isn't so new, a major study lots of this is based on was published in 2010. Here's a skeptical look at that study: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placeb
by hannob 9y ago
This isn't so new, a major study lots of this is based on was published in 2010. Here's a skeptical look at that study:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-effects-without-deception-well-not-exactly/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-effects-without-dec...
- HillaryBriss 9y agoYeah, I think maybe Vox is sensationalizing a bit with that article title. Back in 1995, Dr. Andrew Weil wrote: It is well known that belief in medicines can cause favorable outcomes even if the medicines are ineffective. This is the placebo response, which most doctors dislike because it muddies their experiments and seems inherently unscientific from the point of view of the biomedical model ... far from being a nuisance, it is, potentially, the greatest therapeutic ally doctors can find in their efforts to mitigate disease. [Spontaneous Healing] I'm not saying that Weil describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before? It seems to me Kaptchuk has varied one aspect of the experiment (eliminate double blindness, and even single blindness). Does that make it a radically new hypothesis?
- hannob 9y ago> I'm not saying that Weil describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before? Well, Kaptchuk at least tries to do science. Andrew Weil is a full-blown crank.
- HillaryBriss 9y agoAh. Ok. Got it. Maybe if I rephrase it slightly it will be more useful: Back in 1995, a full-blown crank wrote: It is well known that belief in medicines can cause favorable outcomes even if the medicines are ineffective. This is the placebo response, which most doctors dislike because it muddies their experiments and seems inherently unscientific from the point of view of the biomedical model ... far from being a nuisance, it is, potentially, the greatest therapeutic ally doctors can find in their efforts to mitigate disease. I'm not saying that this full-blown crank describes exactly the same idea as Kaptchuk, but ideas in the same space were out there knocking around. Is Kaptchuk's idea truly radically different from what came before?
- pella 9y ago>a major study lots of this is based on was published in 2010. this is from 2016 Dec ( see "4.1 Limitations" ) "Open-label placebo treatment in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5113234/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5113234/ "Conclusions Our data suggest that harnessing placebo effects without deception is possible in the context of a plausible rationale. More research on this possibility is warranted in cLBP and other conditions defined by self-appraisal."
- pella 9y ago2 replays ( "Letter To Editor" ) "The effect of nothing? Time to abandon the concept of placebo" ( Traeger, Adrian C.; Kamper, Steven J. ) Pain: June 2017 - Volume 158 - Issue 6 - p 1179 doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000884 http://journals.lww.com/pain/Citation/2017/06000/The_effect_of_nothing__Time_to_abandon_the_concept.28.aspx http://journals.lww.com/pain/Citation/2017/06000/The_effect_... ( "open image in new tab" to read ) -- "Are placebo pills presented as experimental treatment a true placebo?" ( Mestre, Tiago A.; Ferreira, Joaquim J. ) Pain: March 2017 - Volume 158 - Issue 3 - p 535 doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000793 http://journals.lww.com/pain/Citation/2017/03000/Are_placebo_pills_presented_as_experimental.21.aspx http://journals.lww.com/pain/Citation/2017/03000/Are_placebo... ( "open image in new tab" to read )