It strikes me that for something like knee surgery, at least, the recovery routine might be what provides the benefit. What if you took a group and did not pretend to give them surgery but made them rest and go through physical therapy as if you had?
The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
31–40 of 90 posts
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#32Very old news. Surgery for "Gastroesophageal reflux disease" was an famous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#cite_note-198 . If I remember correctly in one study symptoms dissipated in 50% of patients, who got sham surgery - just skin incisions.
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
They work the same way that some speaker cables sound so damn great (to whomever paid the $299 for them). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Don't placebos sometimes result in real physical benefits?
If your mind calms down, your heart rate drops, your cortisol goes down, and your muscles become less tense. Those are all physical benefits.
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#34Try it yourself: http://placebobutton.com/
I pressed the comforting, blue button and my chronic gullibility was cured instantly! Thank you Placebo Button!
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#35> For a drug to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it must prove itself better than a placebo, or fake drug. False, the FDA doesn't actually have any requirement to prove that a treatment is better than placebo. Many trials don't even include a placebo arm, they only compare themselves against existing drugs that were grandfathered into the system without any efficacy testing. Or they compare themselves…
I'm not sure I understand the first scenario. If they are tested against drugs which have already been shown to be better than a placebo, doesn't basic logic show they would be, as well?
Or is there a case where one could "pass" this test, but still "lose" against a placebo?
For the rest, I didn't realize there was a difference between inert and active placebos.
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue this is a psychological benefit...
So you think there is nothing physical about mood? Interesting.
We don't even have ways in English (probably any language) to speak about internal states without resorting to dualism. The closest we can get is hardware/software analogies.
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> inert placebos rather than active ones Isn't "active placebo" a contradiction in terms?
It sounds crazy, but the idea is that to be an effective placebo, a pill has to produce known side effects of the real drug. So if the real drug is known to produce dry mouth, the placebo will not be simple salt or sugar, it will be a substance that produces dry mouth.
Isn't too crazy. Is also there to keep everyone blind as to whether they are taking the real thing. Not just those that have no information.
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> inert placebos rather than active ones Isn't "active placebo" a contradiction in terms?
No. Because people know they could be taking a placebo, then having undeniable effect (psychoactive, redness, soreness, etc.) tells them that they are not using the placebo. Conversely, having no undeniable side effects lets them know that they are using the placebo. Thus, placebo usage is undermined. "Active placebo" has an undeniable effect, but not the compound being tested, so that the test subjects cannot tell i…
Couldn't that raise the question of if the side effects themselves are a source of benefit?
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#39> For a drug to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it must prove itself better than a placebo, or fake drug. False, the FDA doesn't actually have any requirement to prove that a treatment is better than placebo. Many trials don't even include a placebo arm, they only compare themselves against existing drugs that were grandfathered into the system without any efficacy testing. Or they compare themselves…
I'm not sure I understand the first scenario. If they are tested against drugs which have already been shown to be better than a placebo, doesn't basic logic show they would be, as well? Or is there a case where one could "pass" this test, but still "lose" against a placebo? For the rest, I didn't realize there was a difference between inert and active placebos.
> Or is there a case where one could "pass" this test, but still "lose" against a placebo?
The main issue is that a lot of the existing drugs aren't better than placebos:
- Some were never required to be tested for efficacy by the FDA before approval.
- Some were tested for whatever reason., but the methodology used by testing was flawed for whatever reason.
- In many the data was blatantly faked or manipulated by the company running the test. In general NIH tests show much lower efficacy for the same drugs as in pharma trials sponsored by the drug manufacturer. There is tons of research on this.
However, there are other tricks that pharma companies use when testing against existing drugs. One of the main ones is using non-effective doses of the older drugs... E.g. by using a higher than normal dose of the older drug in order to make it look like the newer drug has less side effects. This is how the newer generation of anti-psychotics got approved, and it's also how Nexium got approved even though it's basically chemically identical to Prilosec.
Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills
#40I thought that was kind of obvious. A friend of mine who repairs PCs occasionally finds nothing wrong with them and does the usual "I'll run some maintenance on it" and the client is always happier afterwards. He doesn't charge for stuff unless anything needs to be done.
Wouldn't your friend get happier clients if he charged them a little bit? It'd probably give them a stronger placebo effect.