Live data from Hacker News

The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

nytimes.com

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a distinction, though it's tricky to word. It's about what is a direct effect, and what is an indirect effect. There is a feedback loop between abstract thoughts and effects on the body, so to make a proper distinction you want to ignore the feedback loop and look at where the inputs are. A placebo's direct effect is not physical. The direct effect is that first thought that you are receiving treatment, befo…

Yes, of course. A placebo headache medicine of course does not have the direct effect comparable to aspirin, acetaminophen or ibuprofen. It's direct effect is not physical, because it doesn't have one. "No physical effect" means the same thing as "no effect", unless we are willing to discuss metaphysical effects. The indirect effects are somehow the result of the user's expectation that there is a direct effect. That…

>"No physical effect" means the same thing as "no effect"

See, that's the idea I'm not comfortable with. You are defining the term in a way which renders it basically meaningless, when there is an alternate definition that does have useful meaning.

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#82
This article brings up a very important point, and I'm grateful that it was submitted here. The professor of pediatrics who wrote the article is onto some important issues, and I was especially glad he cited some of the research literature with direct links. Reading a review he cited,[1] I see that one of the problems here is the vagueness of what he calls "improvement" in many medical studies. Is the treatment endpoint of a knee operation patients moving better than they used to, as measured by trained observers watching the patients do standardized movements? Or is "improvement" a patient self-report of less pain? Several of the examples the author writes about are examples of treatments indicated to relieve pain (angina, which is chest pain, or lower back pain, and it looks like most of the knee surgery he mainly focuses on was also done to relieve patient-reported pain). Patient self-reported pain is a symptom, a matter important to the patient, but it is not a diagnostic sign that can be objectively observed by anyone else (as, for example, blood pressure or white cell count can be objectively observed).

Too many medical studies, and almost all "alternative medicine" testimonials, are based on soft endpoints (patient self-reports of improvement) rather than on "hard endpoints" (longer healthier life after reduction in all-cause mortality, or resuming walking after being paralyzed, or something observable objectively and lastingly important).

Pretty much all studies by all authors of whatever researcher background that appear to show a "placebo effect" show that only for patient-reported subjective symptoms that are usually temporary anyway like pain and nausea. Nobody asks for a placebo treatment for a broken leg or a life-threatening infection. The medical researchers who look at the issue with proper study designs and statistical controls know that placebos are essentially useless, as they at most have influence just on self-reported subjective symptoms, not on any sign that affects the progression of a disease or maintenance of good health.[2]

Findings on placebo effects by researchers who have considered the issue carefully include

"Despite the spin of the authors – these results put placebo medicine into crystal clear perspective, and I think they are generalizable and consistent with other placebo studies. For objective physiological outcomes, there is no significant placebo effect. Placebos are no better than no treatment at all."[3]

"We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed."[4]

So, yes, let's make sure that studies of surgical techniques include studies of sham surgery. (Studies of acupuncture had better always have sham acupuncture arms in which "real" acupuncture points are disregarded or other aspects of supposedly ancient Chinese technique are intentionally omitted without the patient knowing that.) This will improve the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of new surgical techniques. Just don't assume that ANY placebo is ever good for ANYTHING that you couldn't achieve just by giving yourself a good pep talk.

[1] http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3253

[2] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/michael-specter-on-the-p...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ted-kaptchuk-versus-plac...

[3] http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and-fa...

[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091554

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#83

This article brings up a very important point, and I'm grateful that it was submitted here. The professor of pediatrics who wrote the article is onto some important issues, and I was especially glad he cited some of the research literature with direct links. Reading a review he cited,[1] I see that one of the problems here is the vagueness of what he calls "improvement" in many medical studies. Is the treatment endpo…

"- Administration of placebos should be considered when a patient is refractory to standard treatment, suffers from its side effects, or is in a situation where standard treatment does not exist."

from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/4/219.full

"The moral case for the clinical placebo"

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#85

Perhaps we could create a placebo bureaucracy, say an FDA like agency which just approved anything that came through it. And then we could compare the end results of that agency with the FDA to see which one approved the most 'actually useful' medicines and the one which had the most 'later found to be harmful' medicines.

Chuck, that's already done. That's the "natural supplements" industry[1] as it has been regulated since the mid-1990s in the United States.

[1] "Dietary supplement industry says 'no' to more information for consumers (again)" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-...

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#86
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't say that it's hard, it says that when you do it, there aren't significant benefits over placebo.

The article doesn't say that, what it says is" Given these results, the researchers conclude that there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective. ". The other thing to keep in mind is that this was a meta-analysis using data pooled across many different trials. It certainly isn't as rigor…

> "Given these results, the researchers conclude that there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective."

You seem to be taking that demonstrate efficacy, when what they're actually saying is more like 'there is no evidence that this works, but if nothing works then why the hell not.' It's no different than doctors giving patients the go ahead to use alternative medicine or whatever when the doctors know the patient is already going to die from cancer regardless.

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#87
post #83

This article brings up a very important point, and I'm grateful that it was submitted here. The professor of pediatrics who wrote the article is onto some important issues, and I was especially glad he cited some of the research literature with direct links. Reading a review he cited,[1] I see that one of the problems here is the vagueness of what he calls "improvement" in many medical studies. Is the treatment endpo…

"- Administration of placebos should be considered when a patient is refractory to standard treatment, suffers from its side effects, or is in a situation where standard treatment does not exist." from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/4/219.full "The moral case for the clinical placebo"

Thanks for the link. I note that it reports, "Nevertheless, it is important to mention that according to an influential 2001 meta-analysis comparing placebo-treatment arms with no treatment, placebos make no clinical difference." The citation at that sentence is to an article that lives online in free full text[1] that we can all download and read.

The same team's updated Cochrane review[2] still sums up the evidence by saying, "We found an effect on patient-reported outcomes, especially on pain. Several trials of low risk of bias reported large effects of placebo on pain, but other similar trials reported negligible effect of placebo, indicating the importance of background factors." They add a caution about experimental methods consistent with the article submitted here on HN: "The use of placebos in blinded randomised trials is a precaution directed against many forms of bias, and not only against effects of placebo. Unblinded patients may differ from blinded ones in their way of reporting beneficial and harmful effects of treatment, in their tendency to seek additional treatment outside the study, and in their risk of dropping out of the study. Furthermore, unblinded staff may differ in their use of alternative forms of care and in their assessment of outcomes. Thus, even if there were no true effect of placebo, one would expect to record differences between placebo and no-treatment groups due to bias associated with lack of blinding."

[1] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~doyle/docs/40/PlaceboArticle.pdf

[2] http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003974/COMMUN_placebo-interv...

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#88
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"- Administration of placebos should be considered when a patient is refractory to standard treatment, suffers from its side effects, or is in a situation where standard treatment does not exist." from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/4/219.full "The moral case for the clinical placebo"

Thanks for the link. I note that it reports, "Nevertheless, it is important to mention that according to an influential 2001 meta-analysis comparing placebo-treatment arms with no treatment, placebos make no clinical difference." The citation at that sentence is to an article that lives online in free full text[1] that we can all download and read. The same team's updated Cochrane review[2] still sums up the evidence…

placebo paradoxon- different teams - different conclusions :)

I agree with this:

"It is evident that placebo effects are real and that they have therapeutic potential. Laboratory evidence supports the existence of numerous placebo mechanisms and effects in both healthy volunteers and patients with a variety of medical conditions. Furthermore, clinically relevant evidence demonstrates that placebo effects can have meaningful therapeutic effects, by virtue of magnitude and duration, in different patient populations. Although substantial progress has been made in understanding placebo effects, considerable scientific work remains to be done in both laboratory experiments and translational clinical trial research, ---> with the ultimate aim of harnessing placebo effects to improve patient care."

Damien G Finniss,corresponding author Ted J Kaptchuk, Franklin Miller, and Fabrizio Benedetti

"Placebo Effects: Biological, Clinical and Ethical Advances"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2832199/

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#89
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Truth About Drug Companies by Marcia Angell No offense, but Marcia Angell has a tenuous grasp in terms of knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry. I would take her opinions with a grain of salt.[1] [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/14/marcia-...

If you had read the actual book, you'd know that this article is completely mischaracterizing her arguments. From the article: > Angell’s attack came at the same time that the FDA was reporting that much like 2011, 2012 has proven to a great year for patients with the approval of 35 innovative drugs. Here is the actual argument from the book: "In the five years from 1998 through 2002 [...] 415 new drugs were approved…

Exactly! This quote is entirely wrong: ""In the five years from 1998 through 2002 [...] 415 new drugs were approved -- an average of 83 per year. Of those, 133 (32 percent) were new molecular entities. The others were variations of old drugs. And of those 133, only 58 were priority review drugs. That averages out to no more than 12 innovative drugs per year, or 14 percent of the total.""

Just because it didn't get priority review, doesn't mean it's not innovative.

It just shows how little Angell understands the industry.

Re: The Placebo Effect Doesn’t Apply Just to Pills

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue this is a psychological benefit...

So you think there is nothing physical about mood? Interesting.

I didn't say that. I believe that there are psychological benefits that have physical implications, and physical effects with psychological implications… As in depression can result in physical pain, and chronic pain can result in depression.
Post reply on HN