In the latest Skeptic's Dictionary newsletter, Robert Todd Carroll discusses the placebo effect.
A snippet:
This clears up some confusion I've had. In the SD entry, which he has just updated, he expands on this:
In my many forays at woo forums, they tend to think the placebo effect is a real cure caused by some magical power of the mind.
Bob Carroll goes on:
(Highlighting is what Bob Carroll has recently added to the article.)
I has the dumb. Could someone clarify that paragraph for me, as the updated section seems to contradict the older section.
A snippet:
4. What is the definition, in your mind, of the placebo effect?
In my mind? I have an entry on the placebo effect in the SD. I've also recently recorded a podcast on the placebo. The short answer is that there is no placebo effect. This may shock you, but 'the placebo effect' is a catch-all term for a host of things, which I detail in my entry on this topic in the SD.
This clears up some confusion I've had. In the SD entry, which he has just updated, he expands on this:
The placebo effect is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health or behavior not attributable to a medication or invasive treatment that has been administered. [new] The placebo effect is not mind over matter; it is not mind-body medicine. 'The placebo effect' has become a catchall term for a positive change in health not attributable to medication or treatment. As is explained below, the change can be due to many things, such as regression to the mean, spontaneous improvement, reduction of stress, misdiagnosis in the first place, subject expectancy, classical conditioning, etc. [/new]
In my many forays at woo forums, they tend to think the placebo effect is a real cure caused by some magical power of the mind.
Bob Carroll goes on:
A person's beliefs and hopes about a treatment, combined with their suggestibility, may have a significant biochemical effect, however. Sensory experience and thoughts can affect neurochemistry. The body's neurochemical system affects and is affected by other biochemical systems, including the hormonal and immune systems. Thus, it is consistent with current knowledge that a person's hopeful attitude and beliefs may be very important to their physical well-being and recovery from injury or illness. But it does not follow from this fact that if the patient has hope will she recover. Nor does it follow from this fact that if a person is not hopeful she will not recover.
(Highlighting is what Bob Carroll has recently added to the article.)
I has the dumb. Could someone clarify that paragraph for me, as the updated section seems to contradict the older section.