4 ms·

Far from being convinced. It sounds like superstition.

zajio1am 2y ago
Isn't it more like a superstition to assume the placebo effect is real (and not just a measurement artifact or regression to the mean)? It is hard to make a scientific experiment that could show the placebo effect to be real: > t’s impossible to achieve a blind when comparing placebo to no treatment, since the placebo itself is the main method for blinding in the first place.
- Bengalilol 2y ago
  I may be off, but are you serious about asking that question ? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1422109/#:~:text=About%2050%25%20of%20subjects%20who,that%20they%20had%20received%20alcohol https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1422109/#:~:text=About%2050%....
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dekhn 2y ago
  No
- atoav 2y ago
  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away", as Philip K. Dick said. I don't find it unprobable that a psychological bias of a patient can change the result of an medical observation, since medical problems aren't usually 100% only of physical nature either — when your kid is ill in the morning and they can avoid school they will suddenly feel very unwell, when it is the day you wanted to go to Disneyworld they will suddenly feel very well. This ofc could just be a transparent lie, but often it is not and it truly changes how people feel about their own bodies. Similar that example with the hurt kid being kissed, now the post gives some rational explaination why the pain is soothed, but that doesn't make the effect go away: the psychological presentation of a thing makes an actual difference. A sandwich in a barren break room on a Monday tastes worse than that exact sandwich on a mountain summit after four hours of hiking on a Saturday. Psychological context won't unbreak a broken leg or anything, so there are clear limits, but I am not convinced that the placebo effect is something that only works when researchers believe in the placebo effect themselves. As a Film student I don't find it unlikely that the acting performance of active anti-placebo critics could be unconvincing, but that just means they didn't do a good study then. If you want to study the effect where people are convinced of a thing (placebo) and you half-ass the convincing-part, then you are not researching the effect. But as someone who worked with actors I can assure everybody that you don't necessarily need to believe in a thing to create a convincing performance. Now the actual question is how far that psychological effect goes when it comes to actual measurable numbers.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Psychological context won't unbreak a broken leg or anything, so there are clear limits --- I am going to argue against that, proper rest and sleep helps your leg heal faster and you get better sleep when yoi are less stressed. You are less stressed when you believe something is taking care of you.
    - atoav 2y ago
      Yeah sure over time the animal that rests will be better of than the animal that chews on its wounds. But what I meant there is that there are obvious limits to what pure optimism can do. I had a very optimistic and upbeat neighbour who thought she could beat cancer without modern medicine into which she had zero trust — she died with age 55, having tried literally everything but modern medicine.
- begueradj 2y ago
  That's not what I hinted to, but to this: >The picture that emerges is that a placebo pill has almost no effect when administered by researchers who do not care about the placebo effect, but the exact same pill has an enormous effect larger than all existing treatments when administered by a researcher who really wants the placebo effect to be real.

Isn't it more like a superstition to assume the placebo effect is real (and not just a measurement artifact or regression to the mean)? It is hard to make a scientific experiment that could show the placebo effect to be real: > t’s impossible to achieve a blind when comparing placebo to no treatment, since the placebo itself is the main method for blinding in the first place.

Bengalilol 2y ago
I may be off, but are you serious about asking that question ? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1422109/#:~:text=About%2050%25%20of%20subjects%20who,that%20they%20had%20received%20alcohol https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1422109/#:~:text=About%2050%....
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dekhn 2y ago
No
atoav 2y ago
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away", as Philip K. Dick said. I don't find it unprobable that a psychological bias of a patient can change the result of an medical observation, since medical problems aren't usually 100% only of physical nature either — when your kid is ill in the morning and they can avoid school they will suddenly feel very unwell, when it is the day you wanted to go to Disneyworld they will suddenly feel very well. This ofc could just be a transparent lie, but often it is not and it truly changes how people feel about their own bodies. Similar that example with the hurt kid being kissed, now the post gives some rational explaination why the pain is soothed, but that doesn't make the effect go away: the psychological presentation of a thing makes an actual difference. A sandwich in a barren break room on a Monday tastes worse than that exact sandwich on a mountain summit after four hours of hiking on a Saturday. Psychological context won't unbreak a broken leg or anything, so there are clear limits, but I am not convinced that the placebo effect is something that only works when researchers believe in the placebo effect themselves. As a Film student I don't find it unlikely that the acting performance of active anti-placebo critics could be unconvincing, but that just means they didn't do a good study then. If you want to study the effect where people are convinced of a thing (placebo) and you half-ass the convincing-part, then you are not researching the effect. But as someone who worked with actors I can assure everybody that you don't necessarily need to believe in a thing to create a convincing performance. Now the actual question is how far that psychological effect goes when it comes to actual measurable numbers.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Psychological context won't unbreak a broken leg or anything, so there are clear limits --- I am going to argue against that, proper rest and sleep helps your leg heal faster and you get better sleep when yoi are less stressed. You are less stressed when you believe something is taking care of you.
  - atoav 2y ago
    Yeah sure over time the animal that rests will be better of than the animal that chews on its wounds. But what I meant there is that there are obvious limits to what pure optimism can do. I had a very optimistic and upbeat neighbour who thought she could beat cancer without modern medicine into which she had zero trust — she died with age 55, having tried literally everything but modern medicine.
begueradj 2y ago
That's not what I hinted to, but to this: >The picture that emerges is that a placebo pill has almost no effect when administered by researchers who do not care about the placebo effect, but the exact same pill has an enormous effect larger than all existing treatments when administered by a researcher who really wants the placebo effect to be real.