|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2011 21:11:50 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. From my perspective it looks like a lot of goalpost shifting. First it was you asking how the placebo effect didn't work just because it was in a trial (which nobody claimed), then it was you making the stunning revelation that not everybody responds to the same drug in the same manner, then you found some examples of where the substance picked as a placebo wasn't really a placebo, now it's about how the placebo effect varies based on things like culture and how it's gotten stronger in the States. What the fuck are you trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 20, 2011 21:39:44 GMT -5
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. Because placebos work based on your expectations of their effect, and both presentation and culture affect your expectations. What's your point? It can. Hell, there's plenty of people who do treat you based entirely on the placebo effect, typically homoeopaths and other new-age woo pedlars. But drugs that actually do something work better. "Works better than a placebo" is part of the requirements for something to be considered real medicine, so using placebos will yield worse results than real medicine.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Mar 21, 2011 23:35:03 GMT -5
The problem with treating people with only the placebo effect is that feeling better doesn't automatically mean that you are better. It might be fine in some cases, like a minor stress headache, but the potential for damage -- namely, people not seeking proper treatment and dying because of it -- is really, really high.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 22, 2011 0:18:02 GMT -5
Or, to put it another way: Lets say that you accidentally cut a finger off. We gave you a placebo to "help with healing".
This doesn't bring your fingers back nearly as well as if we used real medicine to reattach the severed finger and then put you on blood thinners. Not even a placebo could achieve the blood thinning effect needed to make sure the finger continues to get blood flow. It has to change actual blood chemistry.
Pain management is a place where placebo is viable. When something needs to actually be fixed, however...
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 23, 2011 1:46:16 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. From my perspective it looks like a lot of goalpost shifting. First it was you asking how the placebo effect didn't work just because it was in a trial (which nobody claimed), then it was you making the stunning revelation that not everybody responds to the same drug in the same manner, then you found some examples of where the substance picked as a placebo wasn't really a placebo, now it's about how the placebo effect varies based on things like culture and how it's gotten stronger in the States. What the fuck are you trying to say? Just that it can effect a lot of things in different ways - treatment designs, drug trials, healing rates...etc - and that what we believe we are well designed tests - designed to take the placebo effect into consideration - are sometimes not well designed at all - the last study showing that tests that used to be able to compensate for this are no longer doing that. Also I was not trying to argue - only discuss. My point is that a 'well designed' test would have to change depending on your culture and expectations. Do you think current testing methods can even do this? Yes one of the articles said something about cancer treatments - that a placebo might give the person a better outlook/attitude and help boost their immune system and prevent some nausea during Chemo but it won't shrink a tumor. - it also said the people with a more positive outlook and the SAME MEDICAL TREATMENT had a better chance of recovery. - so one of my questions is why does everyone think that this kind of mental health encouragement is not considered an additional part of the treatment along with the chemo? Is it that western medicine does not take into acct the power of this effect when designing treatment? or just that it is ignored because it doesn't fit into the way western medical practitioners think? Why is it powerful enough to have to be overcompensated for when testing drugs but not used when treating the conditions those same drugs are supposed to cure? again - I am trying to have a discussion not an argument. I'd be more than happy to hear I am wrong about modern medicine not using this effect to patients advantage, or anyone's personal story about how it did or did not help them. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 23, 2011 1:50:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 23, 2011 3:07:56 GMT -5
My point is that a 'well designed' test would have to change depending on your culture and expectations. Do you think current testing methods can even do this? How do you think they were able to pinpoint differences in culture and expectation as influences on the effectiveness of placebos? Also, if you have a completely randomised and very large sample of people for your study, how is this cultural effect going to manifest in order to actually affect the results in a meaningful way? You are overthinking the significance of rather small points in this discussion. Yes one of the articles said something about cancer treatments - that a placebo might give the person a better outlook/attitude and help boost their immune system and prevent some nausea during Chemo but it won't shrink a tumor. - it also said the people with a more positive outlook and the SAME MEDICAL TREATMENT had a better chance of recovery. - so one of my questions is why does everyone think that this kind of mental health encouragement is not considered an additional part of the treatment along with the chemo? Is it that western medicine does not take into acct the power of this effect when designing treatment? or just that it is ignored because it doesn't fit into the way western medical practitioners think? Why is it powerful enough to have to be overcompensated for when testing drugs but not used when treating the conditions those same drugs are supposed to cure? This 'power' only works in about 35% of people, whereas modern drugs are tested to be much more effective on as many people as possible. If your drug only affects around 35% of people with the same level of effect as a placebo, you might as well be taking a placebo to begin with. As for use of placebos, they ARE used in modern medical treatment, however, they cannot be used on a consistent basis because the effect does not work for most people. What is the point of trying to incorporate a treatment which only effects a handful of people when you could be incorporating other treatments with much larger rates of efficacy? In certain situations, yes, a placebo would make sense. However, you have to remember that prescribing a placebo is a hit and miss affair. They are not a magic bullet, nor are they super amazing and effective that they would make modern medicine so much better if they were used more. Ignored because it doesn't fit in the way 'western medical practitioners' think? Puh-lease, now you are getting a little silly. If that was the case, they wouldn't be using placebos as a baseline to compare medicines with. However, there is also the other point that prescribing placebos requires a degree of deception to some extent, which puts a lot of tension on doctor-patient relationships and ethical standards. Ethical Practice is a very important issue with doctors and is probably the main reason placebos haven't been put to as wide a usage. Not because it "doesn't fit with the way western medical practitioners think".
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 23, 2011 10:50:22 GMT -5
Something I want to add, the last time I checked medical professionals are taught to try and keep the patient in good spirits. This doesn't mean it always happens, they're people too with their own worries and frustrations that can effect job performance, but steps like this are taken, or at least there's the attempt to take them. Which takes us to another issue. You are very ignorant and trying to argue (or discuss, which is the same damn thing) with people who know more than you just doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 23, 2011 11:37:02 GMT -5
My point is that a 'well designed' test would have to change depending on your culture and expectations. Do you think current testing methods can even do this? Yes, as a matter of fact. For that to skew the results of the test, the control group would have to, on average, have significantly different expectations than the test group. If your sample is large enough and properly randomised, then it corrects for that. This is not even unique to the placebo effect. The whole point of using a control is that it has to be as identical as possible to the group given the drug, and that includes same cultural backgrounds, placebo and drug administered in the same way, etc. The placebo effect doesn't change that, it's only one more thing to be wary of. Sometimes people fail to use proper experimental procedures; it happens. Science is hard. But that doesn't require new testing methods, only more care when applying the ones we already have.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Mar 30, 2011 7:29:12 GMT -5
I fused your post with the one above it for some reason, which meant I deleted a line. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Mar 30, 2011 8:46:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by calee022 on Jun 29, 2011 18:15:02 GMT -5
"I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any difference." ~ Steven Wright
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 30, 2011 13:09:15 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, why was this thread stickied?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 30, 2011 21:27:13 GMT -5
Presumably for the same reason the evolution thread was stickied: to deal with a relatively important point of scientific/critical thinking knowledge.
|
|