Diluted sugar

Posted Aug 19, 2012 22:56 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
In reply to: Diluted sugar by anselm
Parent article: Garzik: An Andre To Remember

No, that's not the placebo effect. The fact that things get better in time without treatment is a big reason that the control group reports improvement, but it isn't what people refer to as the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is where a person's subjective evaluation of his health improves when he thinks he is being treated. The placebo doesn't cause his rhinovirus count to go down, but it makes him feel better. When you consider that the real reason most people go to the doctor is to feel better, not to effect a particular biological change in the body, you have to say a placebo is effective in that case. In fact, you could argue it's unethical to withhold a placebo.

The placebo effect is very real. I have a friend who is extremely susceptible to it, not just in medicines, but in everything else. If he installed a new wireless access point, especially if it were expensive, he would report faster web browsing even if the actual speed was unaffected. (He's not the type to measure it, of course).

Sorry for the off-topic

Posted Aug 19, 2012 23:10 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (2 responses)

In fact, you could argue it's unethical to withhold a placebo.

That argument could even be a suitable justification for homeopathic medicine. I am not sure if you want to go there. The thing is that the Hippocratic Oath specifically says "never do harm", but not "avoid useless treatments". It could be argued that using the placebo effect can sooth both patients and their families, in cases where there is no known cure. Sugar pills cannot do any harm...

On the other hand, spreading unscientific theories is a much worse sin in my opinion.

Sorry for the even-more off-topic

Posted Aug 19, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sun) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

> On the other hand, spreading unscientific theories is a much worse sin in my opinion.

You seem to be spreading the theory that "spreading unscientific theories is harmful".
Do you have scientific evidence for this theory (is so, please provide references), or is it just anecdotal/personal belief evidence?

Just curious...

Sorry for the even-more off-topic

Posted Aug 20, 2012 0:04 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Thanks for the recursive laugh, I always appreciate those :)

Anyway, I don't have any scientific basis to dislike unscientific theories, but I am not right now speaking from an office which is (or should be) based on science. If a professor of Astronomy spoke about the horoscope I would start to worry... And I am not a medical practitioner, thank god, since I think it is one of the hardest professions.

From medical practitioners I expect to get at least a plausible explanation of the causes, or (as in the case of Minoxidil above) an experimental confirmation. We should require both, but life is tough. With homeopathy there are neither, and therefore the iniquity.

To bring this long thread at least a bit back into topic, the psychiatric profession has made wonderful advances both in the determination of the root causes of mental illnesses, and in the experimental treatment of those. If you don't feel well, please go to a doctor (a psychiatrist) in addition to a psychologist.