placebo test irony

[drkitten]

Again, I would suggest that it does matter, whether you are handed a placebo, or a real drug. Most participants should half doubt they got a real drug. These hopefull gamblers get the placebo effect from the real drug, in their minds. They put no faith in the placebo. They put their faith (and upwards of 30% effectiveness) in the 50/50 equation presented in the double blind.

So what? We're not testing "faith" -- we're testing whether or not the drug works. And since both the control subjects and the experimental subjects have the same "50/50 equation" (whatever the hell that means), it has no effect on the question of whether or not the drug works.

Pure drug sucess implies half the people in the test remain unhappy, or sneezing...the one's on the fake drug. But it doesn't pan out that way

Yes. That's because some people insist on getting better all by themselves, and that's why you need the control group in the first place.

 

[articulett]

Also, many people get headaches or heart pains that they think are caused by the medication--but if the same number of people on the placebo had such symptoms then we can determine that it is NOT a side effect.

Double blind studies are done so that nobody knows who is getting what. And then we can subtract the placebo improvements and side effects from the medicine and not only test effectiveness--but also whether there are side effects due to the medication.

It sounds like quarky is confused. Yes--placebos work...because something about thinking you are getting help seems to prod people thinking they are feeling better (like faith healers do)-- but these tend to work on illnesses known to involve such mental effects--they don't increase bone density or cure cancer. Some people get better all on their own. These would be subtracted out of the study too because they should be equal in both groups.

Double blind randomized studies of large numbers of people are a very good way of teasing out what is due to the medicine and what is do to something (or everything) else.

 

[casebro]

Why do you think modern drugs are tested only against a control group of 'no drug' instead of a control group of 'other, older drug'? That way, even the control group is getting treatment. I think they test both ways.

 

[quarky]

For the record, I believe that woo's limited success relates to subtle changes in behaviour.
When someone wants to get better, perhaps they eat better or exercise more, without noticing. Homeopathy's sucesses are likely related to these subtle changes.

Mainly, what I'm expressing so poorly is this: The effectiveness of placebo use would rise if no one suspected placebos were used. Is this difficult to understand? Or, am I still wrong in the premise?