Comments on: Placebo has strength in numbers http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/ Neuroscience and psychology news and views. Mon, 20 May 2013 15:51:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: vieome http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-26079 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:56:53 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-26079 What worries one on the placebo effect, is could it be used to generate illness in people rather then cure illness. Stands to reason that if it can be used to cure, it can be used to create. And those with the power to create illness can then market false drugs to cure a non existant illness.

I have noticed in Africa there is a high HIV infection. While there is no denying that man has found such a virus, could it be that many who die from Aids and are never tested for the virus, be dying because of some placebo effect. A classic case of the body can not live without the mind.

If you tell a mind it is dying from some dreaded disease which one does not have, could the mind then go on to die killing the body with it. Given HIV is a sexual disease, it does bring to light other facts, like how can United Kingdom have the highest teenage pregnancy cases in the world(proof protection is not being used in the young) but yet remain so low in HIV contraction.

]]> By: Lydia http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-25382 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:04:31 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-25382 No. It wouldn’t work as well because you know you are not giving yourfelf the real pill but if someone else was to trick you it would work.
What if they’re doing it right now?????

]]> By: Kirstin http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-15814 Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:06:48 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-15814 There’s no reason why regression to the mean would differentially affect one group more than the other. Therefore, I don’t see how this is an explanation for the placebo effect.

When you write about the “active” and “inactive” treatments you imply from the beginning that placebos are inactive. For example, water is not an “inactive” treatment in your example. Rather, you are simply comparing two different types of treatments – one of which happens to be more effective than the other, but fundamentally both are somewhat effective.

Beliefs and expectations modify the brain activity, which can change the signals to the immune system mediated by the autonomic nervous system and neuroendocrine system. Therefore, it’s not just about “psychology” but a true relationship between thoughts and emotions, brain activity, neural and endocrine activity and ultimately immune function.

]]> By: Ron http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5385 Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:22:20 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5385 Great follow up to a very interesting article (though some of definitely goes over my head lol).
Dumb question, if some people suggest the “placebo effect” works because of the “anticipation” factor of someone anticipating the treatment to work and relieve their ailment would knowing that the placebo effect works be enough to “trick” your mind? Meaning if I knew the placebo effect can work as a treatment in itself, could I knowingly take a sugar pill to treat my back ache and in knowing the placebo effect can work itself cause the placebo effect to work?
Wow, that went longer than I intended. It kind of makes sense in my head and now just looks really gobbled in written form lol.
Is it just a dumb idea/question?
Thanks for the great article and post Steve and Vaughn

]]> By: Vaughan http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5384 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:00:29 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5384 “I don’t follow the logic of your argument that more rigorous study design necessarily results in a smaller difference between new drugs and placebos”
This isn’t my logic, it’s the results of empirical studies (see links).
While a great susceptibility to bias could lead the study in either way, it typically doesn’t. It typically leads the results to favour the drug under investigation, presumably, because the greater susceptibility means the study is swayed towards the more favourable results for the investigators (typically a drug company).

]]> By: Lance Gravlee http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5383 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:08:48 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5383 You’re right that it muddies the water when the same term refers to two different concepts — and that differences in study design can affect the magnitude of the difference between treatments. But I don’t follow the logic of your argument that more rigorous study design necessarily results in a smaller difference between new drugs and placebos. That argument seems to assume that (1) the real drug effect is constant over time and (2) that the bias introduced by poorly designed studies always amplifies differences between drugs and placebos. On the face of it, neither assumption seems warranted. If there’s a problem with randomization, for instance, it could go either way. And isn’t it possible that some of the apparent increase in the placebo effect can be attributed to more trials of drugs that have smaller effects?

]]> By: Todd I. Stark http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5382 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:47:04 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5382 Nice article. It’s very important to distinguish the methodological issue of non-treatment effects of various kinds from the specific research issues related to response expectancy. There is an independent scientific literature on the effects of expectancy on behavioral responses that does not depend fundamentally on “placebo effect” claims in research methodology. The so-called “placebo effect” as commonly used is a suitcase term for a number of things that include statistical artifacts, spontaneous remission, loose controls, and of course response expectancy as well. As Vaughan pointed out, response expectancy is a factor in both the non-treatment effect size and the treatment effect size, since we expect a result when we get the real treatment as well as when we get the faux treatment.

]]> By: Vaughan http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5381 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:14:55 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5381 Hi PJ,
You’re quite right and I’m arguing that statistical placebo is relative to the other conditions because the active drug effect, by definition, is its improvement minus placebo (of course, belief and expectancy also contribute to the effect of the active condition as well, so by this definition there is a placebo effect in both arms – another reason to distinguish the definitions).
This is usually the case because a majority of trials don’t have a ‘no treatment’ arm. As Steve also mentions above, in a three-arm trial with a no treatment condition, placebo can be measured with regards to this. Again, as it’s a statistical result it depends on the trial design.

]]> By: PJ http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5380 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:10:29 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5380 I don’t quite understand the argument that more rigorous studies decrease the placebo effect. They decrease the active drug effect (which is the active arm effect minus the placebo arm effect) but this is not the same thing as the placebo effect which is variously defined but is something like the placebo arm effect minus a no-treatment arm effect, or even the net change in the placebo arm over time.
I may be reading you wrong but you seem to have just equated the placebo effect with the inverse of the active drug effect.
It seems to me that the argument being made in the article is that the placebo arm effect size has been increasing over time – and this is, of course, unaffected by active treatment effect size.
Now active treatment effect size could be reduced by an increasing placebo arm effect size if they are non-additive, but that’s a slightly different argument to the one you’re making.

]]> By: Vaughan http://mindhacks.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5379 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:33:47 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/placebo-has-strength-in-numbers/#comment-5379 Hi Steve, a pleasure and thanks for such a great article. One of the best I’ve read on placebo for a very long time.

]]>