[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Josh,

More precisely I know of know valid studies that verify this claim.

Quote

People are cured by placebos

There have been rare cases of spontaneous remissions of cancer - but in no way is that the same as being healed by either faith or placebos.

Right that just seemed like lazy typing to me. Of course people aren't cured "by" placebos (by definition in fact), but they often show improvement while taking placebos.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Josh,

More precisely I know of know valid studies that verify this claim.

Quote

People are cured by placebos

There have been rare cases of spontaneous remissions of cancer - but in no way is that the same as being healed by either faith or placebos.

Right that just seemed like lazy typing to me. Of course people aren't cured "by" placebos (by definition in fact), but they often show improvement while taking placebos.

Again, Josh, I personally am not aware of any studies where a placebo was shown to be responsible for improvement. There have been thousands of cases where the new medicine worsened a condition or caused secondary serious problems and thus making the placebo group outperform - but the cause was poor performance of the test medication and not the giving of the placebo.

If you know of any verified studies where a placebo was shown to cause improvement I would be interested in seeing it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

They both claimed that it was astounding obvious that best medicine was to combine both of them, but that pharmaceuticals didn't want to lose some of their benefits and were pressing everywhere to not let Chinise medicine get to hospitals

I believe there to be a lot of truth in this claim - and I am not an especially ardent defender of medication use or the pharmacutical companies - but I do take their research over witch doctors, voodoo, and faith healers 11 times out of 10.

[jdonn]

Come on, you have never heard of the placebo effect? Wikipedia has a very extensive writeup. First paragraph:

Quote

The placebo effect is a medical phenomenon in which a physiologically inert treatment, or placebo, improves a patient's condition relative to similar patients who receive no treatment at all. One well-known placebo effect occurs when a patient is treated with an inert pill or a sham surgery. Although these placebos cause no medically relevant changes to the body, patients who are treated with them will improve more on average than patients who receive no treatment. The placebo effect can also be an additional boost for a real therapy or drug beyond that warranted solely by its actual physiological action.

[Winstonm]

Josh,

I prefer the educated version versus the urban legend: http://www.quackwatc...on/placebo.html

The placebo effect you are talking about is quite different than the statement made by JT - a psychological placebo effect can occur when an individual anticipates improvement, but no such effect occurs with an entire control group.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

Josh,

I prefer the educated version versus the urban legend:  http://www.quackwatc...on/placebo.html

Um, ok, thanks for proving me.....wrong?

Quote

By lessening anxiety, placebo action may alleviate symptoms caused by the body's reaction to tension (psychosomatic symptoms).

Quote

Many studies suggest that placebos can relieve a broad range of symptoms. In many disorders, one third or more of patients will get relief from a placebo. Temporary relief has been demonstrated, for example, in arthritis, hay fever, headache, cough, high blood pressure, premenstrual tension, peptic ulcer, and even cancer.

Quote

The only requirement for a placebo effect is the awareness that something has been done. It is not possible to predict accurately or easily a particular patient's reaction to a placebo at a particular moment. However, the psychologic predisposition to respond positively to placebos is present to some extent in most people.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

Josh,

I prefer the educated version versus the urban legend:  http://www.quackwatc...on/placebo.html

Um, ok, thanks for proving me.....wrong?

Quote

By lessening anxiety, placebo action may alleviate symptoms caused by the body's reaction to tension (psychosomatic symptoms).

Quote

Many studies suggest that placebos can relieve a broad range of symptoms. In many disorders, one third or more of patients will get relief from a placebo. Temporary relief has been demonstrated, for example, in arthritis, hay fever, headache, cough, high blood pressure, premenstrual tension, peptic ulcer, and even cancer.

Quote

The only requirement for a placebo effect is the awareness that something has been done. It is not possible to predict accurately or easily a particular patient's reaction to a placebo at a particular moment. However, the psychologic predisposition to respond positively to placebos is present to some extent in most people.

Josh,

A temporary (usually) respite brought about by the belief of one individual in the power of a sugar pill is quite different than this claim:

Quote

And yet, when we test medicines nowadays, we compare them with a group given placebos. We do this because we've found that people who simply believe that they've been given medicine heal faster than people who don't believe it. This isn't just for depression or headaches- this is for diabetes, for cancer, and for other lethal illnesses. People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine. Just what, four generations ago the idea that a sugar pill could cure cancer at any rate at all would have gotten you kicked out of medical school. Now it's accepted as science.

Once again, I personally know of no studies that have shown a placebo to cause a cure of anything - and I am unaware of any control group studies that show that a placebo outperforms any drug now in use.

Quote

placebos can relieve a broad range of symptoms. In many disorders, one third or more of patients will get relief from a placebo. Temporary relief has been demonstrated,

I can assure you, there is a dramatic difference between managing symptoms and curing disease, between relief and cure, and temporary relief and permanency.

[mike777]

"Once again, I personally know on no studies that have shown a placebo to cause a cure of anything - and I am unaware of any control group studies that show that a placebo outperforms any drug now in use."



Now sure exactly what the issue is here but I must admit I thought the placebo effect is very much more effective than some drugs. If nothing else, while I did not search medical texts or internet, I thought the placebo effect is if nothing else powerful in combination with "real" drugs.


edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo


The placebo effect is a medical phenomenon in which a physiologically inert treatment, or placebo, improves a patient's condition relative to similar patients who receive no treatment at all. One well-known placebo effect occurs when a patient is treated with an inert pill or a sham surgery. Although these placebos cause no medically relevant changes to the body, patients who are treated with them will improve more on average than patients who receive no treatment. The placebo effect can also be an additional boost for a real therapy or drug beyond that warranted solely by its actual physiological action.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 29 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Now sure exactly what the issue is here but I must admit I thought the placebo effect is very much more effective than some drugs.

We can try it the next time you have surgery, Mike. A sugar pill instead of Demerol or Morphine for the pain?

Seriously, the placebo effect is not caused by the placebo but by the recipient, so the effectiveness varies. And yes, it could possibly increase the effectiveness of real drugs.

Again, the effect is about managing symptoms and relief - none of which implies a cure.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 29 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Now sure exactly what the issue is here but I must admit I thought the placebo effect is very much more effective than some drugs.

We can try it the next time you have surgery, Mike. A sugar pill instead of Demerol or Morphine for the pain?

Seriously, the placebo effect is not caused by the placebo but by the recipient, so the effectiveness varies. And yes, it could possibly increase the effectiveness of real drugs.


Placebo analgesia is more likely to work the more severe the pain[68] It can be effective: one study found for postoperative pain following the extraction of the third molar, that a saline injected while telling the patient it was a powerful painkiller was as potent as a 6–8 mg dose of morphine.[69]




Most research reports average reduction for a group of people, and this is lower (some people do not respond). In one study using injection of capsaicin below the skin found that this reduced group average pain compared to no placebo by ~46% to ~57%.[35]Another measure is the ability to endure pain. In one study, placebos increased this on average by about 3.5 minutes in the context of just under 14 minutes without it.[70] The average strength of placebos upon pain on a visual analog scale is 2 out of 10 units[71][72] Individuals that respond to placebos show greater effects and can be 5 out of 10 units.[73]


A meta-analysis in 1998 found that 75% of the effectiveness of anti-depressant medication is due to the placebo-effect rather than the treatment itself.[74] A meta-analysis in 2008 found that 79% of depressed patients receiving placebo remained well compared to 93% of those receiving antidepressants for the effect of placebos (for 12 weeks after an initial 6-8 weeks of successful therapy).[75] Another meta-analysis in 2002 found a 30% reduction in suicide and attempted suicide in the placebo groups compared to a 40% reduction in the treated groups.[76]

A 2002 article in The Washington Post titled "Against Depression, a Sugar Pill Is Hard to Beat" summarized research as follows, "in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as -- or better than -- antidepressants. Companies have had to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug Administration's minimum for approval. the makers of Prozac had to run five trials to obtain two that were positive, and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even more”.[77]


/Placebo]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo[/URL]

[jdonn]

Are you trying to have a discussion, or am I some mouse in a maze being watched by a team of scientists?

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2009, 09:01 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Of course people aren't cured "by" placebos (by definition in fact), but they often show improvement while taking placebos.

Again, Josh, I personally am not aware of any studies where a placebo was shown to be responsible for improvement.
.....
If you know of any verified studies where a placebo was shown to cause improvement I would be interested in seeing it.

Already the footprints going around the circle are showing up, but I perhaps foolishly follow them. I provide from YOUR link:

Quote

Many studies suggest that placebos can relieve a broad range of symptoms. In many disorders, one third or more of patients will get relief from a placebo. Temporary relief has been demonstrated, for example, in arthritis, hay fever, headache, cough, high blood pressure, premenstrual tension, peptic ulcer, and even cancer.

Is it that you don't consider relief from symptoms "improvement"? Or is it that when I said "Of course people aren't cured "by" placebos (by definition in fact), but they often show improvement while taking placebos." you thought by simply repeating yourself in reply that my point was not a part of the discussion and you were still arguing with the last thing I said?

If I were my father, and you were me, he would be saying "it's like talking to a brick wall" right now....

[mike777]

"Again, the effect is about managing symptoms and relief - none of which implies a cure."




Sometimes "management" is the best we can hope for in many cases.......in our lifetimes.

[Winstonm]

The studies of antidepressants is not a surprise to me. The entire issue of depression and medications use is open for debate.

Quote

Sometimes "management" is the best we can hope for in many cases.......

Very true. But this does not address the issue that started the placebo debate. This is the original comment that started it off:

Quote

And yet, when we test medicines nowadays, we compare them with a group given placebos. We do this because we've found that people who simply believe that they've been given medicine heal faster than people who don't believe it. This isn't just for depression or headaches- this is for diabetes, for cancer, and for other lethal illnesses. People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine. Just what, four generations ago the idea that a sugar pill could cure cancer at any rate at all would have gotten you kicked out of medical school. Now it's accepted as science.

I challenge the validity of this entire statement. Sure, the placebo effect has some validity - but there is no proven validity to claims of faith healers, Christian Scientists, or witch doctors.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Is it that you don't consider relief from symptoms "improvement"? Or is it that when I said "Of course people aren't cured "by" placebos (by definition in fact), but they often show improvement while taking placebos." you thought by simply repeating yourself in reply that my point was not a part of the discussion and you were still arguing with the last thing I said?

This is certainly confusing - I didn't realize I was debating you about anything. I thought I was trying to explain why I objected to JT's claims.

Let me make it clear but repetitive: The objection I have is the claim that faith and placebos can cure. Again, I have never seen a single study that verifies these claims.

I could once again cut and paste the paragraph, but that is getting a bit much, don't you think?

However, I decided to make certain my own memory was valid.

Quote

QUOTE 
People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine. 



Although I am not an expert, this is treading into my field - and I am unaware of any such studies that validate these claims. I would be interested in seeing the source for my own edification. Thanks.

It is how I remembered - the only two things I challenged were the claims of placebo cures and faith healing. And I asked for the proof that modern medicine has ignored.

[mike777]

I am in favor of the what is commonly called the "scientific method"

I did not see any posts who want to stop funding this.

From what I understand there is basically an unlimited unfunded need for medical research studies..in the mean time there are real patients with real pain issues....

[jdonn]

Now I understand. You make a post, highlight it, hit Ctrl+C, wait for each reply I make, hit Ctrl+V, and call it a day. At least we are clear.

[Winstonm]

Obviously, we have been talking about different things. You seem to have been talking about the study of placebos, whereas I was talking about the study of new drugs - these are not the same thing.

When you made the statement about improvement I thought you meant the improvement of a control group in a drug study - because that's what I was talking about. I answered that I was unaware of any study that showed that. At this point we seemed to part ways on understanding.

Let me simplify my position. I know of no study of a new drug in which an improvement in condition was shown to be caused by the placebo - basically, this would be because they weren't investigating the placebo's affect but only using it as a control group. They would be searching for physiological evidence of change in condition rather than subjective information, also. However, if there had been this occurence I would be glad to know of it.

[onoway]

well you are not likely to run across any studies about witch doctors or faith healing as people who are truly such people are basically subject to intimidation if not prosecution for doing anything. The medical community is extremely jealous of its "only game in town" status and can hold its own in that regard with any fundamentalist religious group.

The pharma companies are actively involved in trying to negate any possiblity of competition from, for example, herbalists, by disseminating outright lies and halftruths about alternatives "herbal medicines kill!!" (possibly true of a very few herbs such as foxglove, from which digitalis was derived. but extremely unlikely otherwise) and "Created drugs are safe!!" (also untrue, if you follow the records of drug related deaths or simply even read the info they provide with presriptions now). This is not to say that created drugs don't have a time and place, but that they are absolutely in line with the sort of "sacramental" status that religious objects are afforded by the faithful.

I personally know of someone who suffered for years in spite of numerous professional medical efforts to help, from a bad back. He saw a 'witch doctor" in Mexico. Once. He was alarmed because he didn't understand how it was that he could become able to walk free of pain again for the first time in years even though the intervention was a minimal touching. I saw a "healer", also in Mexico, (not the same one, not even in the same area)for a knee which several doctors in Canada declared needed surgery. She was about 4 feet tall looked 100 years old and frail, and I couldn't understand more than one word in 10 but she fixed my knee in that while it had been going "out" about every 4 months for a week or so,(and had "gone out" there, which is why I saw her) it has never once gone out since I saw her. I was supposed to go back, but she alarmed me as well, it was something beyond my understanding (and besides, my knee was working again and didn't hurt anymore). Neither wanted a lot of money ( much less than the Doctors would have required) and neither did anything weird ..except fix the problem. Both of these people would have been prosecuted had the authorities known about them.

[Codo]

mikeh, on Jan 30 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

The irony is that theists DON'T react this way. Theists hear of well-researched, solid facts and go into denial. I, and I suspect Richard and Josh and Helene, etc, would simply want to know more and to seek to understand the phenonemum, yet the theists, whose entire thought processes operate under the constraints of cognitive dissonance, think that we are like them! That we are wedded to our 'belief' as they are. Weird.. but just more proof, if any were needed, that rationality is a rationed trait.

If you really believe what you writes here, there is no need to comment.
It is enough just to highlight this scientifical and openminded view of the good and the evil. Thanks for clearing this up.

[Gerben42]

Of course there are medical treatments that work, other than "traditional medicine". Chinese medicine has been based on that what works rather than that what can be understood. Some things work even though we don't understand them, maybe in the future we will have an explanation why it works.

What should be actively eradicated are therapies that cannot work, or that are simply quackery.

A famous case was some self-proclaimed spritualist Jomanda who convinced a famous Dutch actress that she really just had an inflammation that she could heal, when in fact she had cancer. She is now facing charges, and personally I hope that she will be convicted.