close
There is not such a thing like a placebo effect

There is not such a thing like a placebo effect

The guys from the Science of Sport blog posted a smart video on the placebo effect. I love this topic, because for me it shows clearly the dilemma of natural science. The scientific work and its discourse is all about what is true and what is false, and how to prove it. Science is permanently pursuing the goal of proving a proposition to be true or false. Within this mindset a placebo is a weird creature, it involves feelings and perception, and effects seem to evolve from the void. A placebo is obviously efficacious, but the scientific proof of its efficacy is missing, at least if science is applying its own rules. Scientists are split when dealing with everyday experience and evidence. The set of rules they are working with does not allow them to accept evidence that easy (which is good too!). But what is the value of everyday experience and evidence? If clinical studies are performed the statistician has to account around 30% for the placebo effect, a tremendous amount. But why should we neglect 30% on the path to well-being?

Things we don’t know about, things we are not aware of, well, can’t they exist?

There is medication that does not show any effect when given covert. On the other hand, we may observe an amazing effect of the placebo. Studies have been and are performed to prove the existence of an placebo-effect. But what does “proof” mean? First natural science with its standardized tool box identifies some parameters assumed to be related with a specific disease. If the substance (placebo) to be tested does not change the selected parameters, but the disease profile, then they doubt the effect of the respective substance. The change may then be due to the placebo-effect.
Why does this justify the conclusion of inefficacy? Things we don’t know about, things we are not aware of, well, can’ they exist?

Studies have been able to prove brain activity!

Placebo initiates brain activity. Here we are, isn’t this straightforward a proof for a stimulus being effective! Couldn’t it be that there are stimuli inducing this activity that are equal to those induced by a substance put to test? But who cares? Only scientists?
Did nobody consider the fact, that our body follows certain rules, regardless from where the stimuli are sent, whether they are of mental or physical origin, whether they are medicine, food or so-called placebos, the body processes the stimuli always following its own rules. Therefore the stimulus is essential, not the substance. And it is important that the message is sent and received.

An example
A selected group of volunteers with knee joint pains was assigned to 3 treatment groups. All of them had to undergo a knee operation. But only 2 of them got an invasive treatment. The knee operation of the third group was a fake, they only received a skin cut. After an observation period of 6 months the group without any invasive therapy showed the best results. They felt perfectly well.

What do think about placebos? Is this term justified at all? Shouldn’t we show more respect to evidence?

Susann

Susann

Susann is the biest prototype and head of the team. She is Austrian, has studied medicine, meaning she is a medical doctor and the Biesters' alpha wolf. Susann continuously produces new ideas, is strong in making concepts and is practically always ON FIRE. Without her BIESTMILCH wouldn't be where and what it is today, and anyway - not possible.

Communication circle training 2nd Round (6/6)

Texas Round-up: The Biest spirit of Galveston

Leave a Response