|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Mar 17, 2011 15:39:45 GMT -5
My title indicates that I am, in fact, the master of horrible puns. The "punisher", if you will.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 17, 2011 15:53:38 GMT -5
I demand a punoff. Winner is the master of puns.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 17, 2011 18:00:48 GMT -5
Won't be a real punoff unless David D. G. returns.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 17, 2011 18:49:52 GMT -5
He hasn't been around in forever.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 17, 2011 19:27:46 GMT -5
You know who I miss? Maryland Bear
Wait, no I don't, that fucker punned up everything.
|
|
|
Post by mechtaur on Mar 18, 2011 1:10:51 GMT -5
You guys are ruining all the pun.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 18, 2011 1:32:30 GMT -5
I don't know. I feel that my foot pun was archly humorous, but these guys are kind of giving it legs.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 18, 2011 1:35:35 GMT -5
This is a pretty sticky subject...
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 19, 2011 11:07:49 GMT -5
I just wonder what stops someone from having the effect just because they know they are IN a trial? It doesn't, but that has nothing to do with what double blind does. You give people placebos on purpose and other people real meds. You use the placebos as a control and if the real meds don't perform better, then the real meds aren't real meds. Oh, and the difference has to be statistically meaningful, that way random chance has less influence. To put it a different way, the placebo effect is used to establish a baseline, if your drug doesn't perform better than the baseline, it's worthless. But the placebo effect doesn't work the same on everyone - what if your control group is just more susceptible? I know, I know, that's why they do more than one trial - I guess I would like to know why this effect is not used more to our advantage - why isn't treatment developed to fool your mind as much as R&D spends to change your chemistry/biology. This is the kind of thing that 'proves' the power of prayer (or that laughter is the best medicine) - and rather then selling religion with it - it might be nice if someone used it for scientific purposes - seeing it's occasional power why isn't the scientific community using it more? and where do you draw the line between using the placebo effect and being a snakeoil salesmen?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2011 11:57:16 GMT -5
Remember the thing I said about it being statistically meaningful? That's to compensate for different meds effecting people in different ways. It's already factored in.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 19, 2011 12:44:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 19, 2011 13:04:01 GMT -5
Umm, you missed Vene's point entirely. In order to have a statistically meaningful study, you must have large sample sizes in order to be able to draw meaningful statistical data. Large sample sizes also help smooth out variation within groups so to avoid particular variables tainting results. Doing a study of 10,000 people will be a lot more statistically meaningful than a study of 100 people.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 19, 2011 13:48:40 GMT -5
I guess I would like to know why this effect is not used more to our advantage - why isn't treatment developed to fool your mind as much as R&D spends to change your chemistry/biology. This is the kind of thing that 'proves' the power of prayer (or that laughter is the best medicine) - and rather then selling religion with it - it might be nice if someone used it for scientific purposes - seeing it's occasional power why isn't the scientific community using it more? and where do you draw the line between using the placebo effect and being a snakeoil salesmen? Basically, because placebos have limited effect. Part of the placebo effect is people getting better, but also part of it is simply feeling like they got better. Feeling good is great and all, but some drugs need to do more than that. Like stop you from dying. As for the line between using a placebo and being a snake-oil salesman, it's the "salesman" part. Placebos, when used legitimately, are not sold, they are administered in drug trials. If you're using a drug with the purpose of curing someone, it better damn do something (barring the hypothetical case of a condition that doesn't respond to actual treatment better than to sugar pills)
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2011 14:02:21 GMT -5
So you found a few studies where the control group wasn't really a control group. Congratulations, you have found that there are some people out there who will design a poor experiment. This is not news. You just showed why peer review journals require studies to document everything that was done, just in case it was meaningful. It's really simple to see if the control was really a control, test it against another substance used as a placebo.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 19, 2011 19:06:32 GMT -5
I guess I would like to know why this effect is not used more to our advantage - why isn't treatment developed to fool your mind as much as R&D spends to change your chemistry/biology. This is the kind of thing that 'proves' the power of prayer (or that laughter is the best medicine) - and rather then selling religion with it - it might be nice if someone used it for scientific purposes - seeing it's occasional power why isn't the scientific community using it more? and where do you draw the line between using the placebo effect and being a snakeoil salesmen? Basically, because placebos have limited effect. Part of the placebo effect is people getting better, but also part of it is simply feeling like they got better. Feeling good is great and all, but some drugs need to do more than that. Like stop you from dying. As for the line between using a placebo and being a snake-oil salesman, it's the "salesman" part. Placebos, when used legitimately, are not sold, they are administered in drug trials. If you're using a drug with the purpose of curing someone, it better damn do something (barring the hypothetical case of a condition that doesn't respond to actual treatment better than to sugar pills) The Youtube thing in the beginning says that placebos that cost more work better then ones that cost less and that real illnesses respond better in certain countries to placebos for certain conditions then they do in others. Here is a substance that isn't supposed to 'DO' anything but it makes the person better anyway. - why can't this be harnessed as a treatment? and could some of those old snake oils actually be making people with certain conditions better? I agree that drug trials should be stringent but, from what I understand, the understanding of what is considered a legit trial is having to change... www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect/?currentPage=1
|
|