Placebo

Placebos can be anything whose effects won't interfere with the outcome(s) of interest, although if it's something other than an inert substance, it tends to be called an "active placebo".

BTW, if you wish to be well informed, a site devoted to misrepresenting information in order to fit a specific agenda is not the way to go about it, regardless of whether or not it happens to fit with your personal bias.


Linda

Thanks. But why use anything but inert substances, have you a short answer?

I’ve come the conclusion that all sites have some agenda. I used that one because it was the one I kept alink to about this issue, which previously I was not aware of. Such sites are biased only if you have different opinions to them, sites such as the CDC are also biased, this time in favour of vaccines, a lot of folks including me feel uneasy about some of their thinking.

Thanks. But why use anything but inert substances, have you a short answer?

For various reasons...for example, if the drug causes a distinct side effect, then a drug which gives a similar side effect (without interfering with the main outcome), may be given to maintain blinding.

I’ve come the conclusion that all sites have some agenda. I used that one because it was the one I kept alink to about this issue, which previously I was not aware of. Such sites are biased only if you have different opinions to them, sites such as the CDC are also biased, this time in favour of vaccines, a lot of folks including me feel uneasy about some of their thinking.

Whether a site is biased has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with their message. There’s a difference between an agenda to present all the information relevant to a specific perspective (e.g. a public health perspective), and an agenda to force a particular conclusion. In the case of the former, there is no incentive to misrepresent information. In the case of the latter, there is strong incentive to do so.

Linda

For various reasons...for example, if the drug causes a distinct side effect, then a drug which gives a similar side effect (without interfering with the main outcome), may be given to maintain blinding.


Whether a site is biased has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with their message. There’s a difference between an agenda to present all the information relevant to a specific perspective (e.g. a public health perspective), and an agenda to force a particular conclusion. In the case of the former, there is no incentive to misrepresent information. In the case of the latter, there is strong incentive to do so.

Linda

As this is off topic, I would ask you to continue this on the vaxx thread please.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - Hayley Stevens criticises an edition of National Geographic magazine with the theme "Science of the Supernatural":
https://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/a-scientifi...ernatural/

She contacted Mike Hall of the Merseyside Skeptics Society for advice about placebos, which was one of the topics discussed, and he said:
"Where NatGeo says “people receive inert substances, yet believing they are authentic, their mind directs their body to repair itself”, is 100% speculation. There’s no mechanism for that, and I don’t even know what “the mind directs the body to repair itself” would mean in specific physiological terms. As best as we can tell, the majority of the measured placebo response in the control groups of clinical trials consists of various biases, statistical effects, and other artifacts from the research process itself."

He also criticised a particular suggestion in the magazine that the effect was mediated by dopamine. But it surprised me that he seemed sceptical as to whether the placebo effect even existed. And that he seemed to be suggesting that it would be essentially absent from properly conducted clinical studies.

Is scepticism about the existence of the placebo effect "a thing"?

Courtesy of the Daily Grail - Daniel Kolitz of Gizmodo asked "the leading experts on the placebo effect" to explain why placebos work:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/10/why-d...ebos-work/

My favourite response was that they work in various ways - if only by getting rid of a patient who is pestering their doctor.

"Where NatGeo says “people receive inert substances, yet believing they are authentic, their mind directs their body to repair itself”, is 100% speculation. There’s no mechanism for that, and I don’t even know what “the mind directs the body to repair itself” would mean in specific physiological terms. As best as we can tell, the majority of the measured placebo response in the control groups of clinical trials consists of various biases, statistical effects, and other artifacts from the research process itself."

If you take that assertion at face value, it doesn't say much about the reliability of medical research, does it!

To me, that illustrates how the extreme sceptical viewpoint descends into confusion.

I am sure medical research did its best to eliminate "statistical effects and artefacts" before it took the uncomfortable decision to accept that the placebo effect is real, and bothersome for research.

David

Skepticism about the placebo effect is a "thing". Most comparisons (formal and informal) are between before the placebo was taken and after. Any difference is attributed to a "placebo effect". However, before and after comparisons when nothing has been taken also show an "effect". It makes sense to ask if there is any difference between the "placebo effect" and the "take nothing effect".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012

The studies looking at specific biochemical responses have all been conditioning studies. That is, subjects have been given medication with active ingredients to produce a specific response. Then they are tested to see if that specific response can be reproduced with expectation only (like the dog who salivates at the sound of the bell, even after the food no longer appears). Even though the biochemical responses from expectation are weaker and eventually extinguish, that is fairly amazing. But it's hard to see how conditioning someone to produce a little dopamine as a response to expectation is relevant to whether or not they recover from a cold or a broken leg or a gastroenteritis. The only expectation response which seems to already exist among the general population is pain relief from endogenous opioid release. And even then, the effect due solely to expectation doesn't reach clinical significance in most studies (minimum clinical significance is a difference of about 15 to 20 on a 100 point scale).

"over the past couple of decades, scientists too have become increasingly interested in the potential of ‘mind over muscle’"

Here is a curious article in the online magazine Psyche.

https://psyche.co/ideas/physical-fatigue...n-the-body

"In the final trial, the weightlifters again received the placebo but now the weights had been restored to their original value. Astonishingly, the weightlifters’ enhanced expectations increased their performance by around 25 per cent, compared with their baseline."

The article conflates mind and brain.  It notes the impact in the physical world of beliefs and expectations.  But is lacking in any concepts of metaphysics.

It is possible in the right conditions for the mind to alter physical materials.  I had the experience both with spoon bending and with temporarily changing the weight of a large table (it was then lifted with fingertips only).

Perhaps over time the accumulation of the stories like those in the article will lead to broader changes in philosophy and ultimately discredit materialism.