4 ms·
The article claims that the placebo effect has never been shown as a physical, objectively measurable effect, but this is wrong. For example, I look at autoimm
by atombender 2y ago
The article claims that the placebo effect has never been shown as a physical, objectively measurable effect, but this is wrong.
For example, I look at autoimmune studies a lot. In those studies, when placebo-controlled, a fair number (often 20-30%) of patients on the placebo arm see significant improvement in symptoms across many objective, physical metrics. Measurement errors exist, of course, but I would expect physical measurements to not be prone to so much psychological bias, especially if double-blinded, that this would explain away the difference in results.
The article is also wrong about there not being a physiological mechanism. Dopamine and endorphins can be powerful mediators of pain relief, for example.
- phil9909 2y agoThis could be placebo, but it could also be "self-healing" effects or just natural variation over time (which would cause a similar amount of patients with worse results) or a combination of this or something completely else. Maybe you can rule out some of this, but I'm asking the question: Is the placebo effect the only plausible explanation for this numbers? I don't think so.
- atombender 2y agoIn these studies, we see a slow increase in benefit over a period of (typically) 24 weeks, in line with the active arms. With autoimmune diseases, things don't get slowly better when you're not on medications. Some ebb and flow, sure, but not gradual improvement.