Why are Placeboes Getting Better?

[Dave Moore]

Over the last 30 years or so, placeboes have become more effective against drugs in trials, but no one seems to know why.

This has become one of the biggest mysteries in science. Drug companies can no longer use placeboes effectively against drugs that often test little better than the sugar pill, for example.

I am wondering what you think. Is something outside the realm of known science going on?

 

 

Dave

Edited March 14, 2017 by Dave Moore

[fiveworlds]

Do you have any references for that??

[swansont]

You have not established that your premise is true. How do you know e.g. that new drugs aren't just less effective in comparison, and we're trying to treat diseases more prone to the placebo effect?

[Velocity_Boy]

Over the last 30 years or so, placeboes have become more effective against drugs in trials, but no one seems to know why.

This has become one of the biggest mysteries in science. Drug companies can no longer use placeboes effectively against drugs that often test little better than the sugar pill, for example.

I am wondering what you think. Is something outside the realm of known science going on?

 

 

Dave

It's not the placebos themselves that are getting better. That is a misleading claim.

 

Far more accurate to say that the Placebo Effect seems to be working more often than it previously had.

 

Since the placebo itself is an insert substance such as a sugar pill, it in and of itself does nothing.

 

But since we are nowadays far more familiar with the powers and efficacy and prevalence of medications, the subjects given the placebo in a double blind study are likely more apt to believe the drug is working.

 

People are more gullible when it comes to believing a pill can cure their ills. Too,the persuasiveness of the test clinicians dispensing the placebo as likely better in their presentations. Conjurer's and magicians call this prepping or salting the audience. Somebody giving a placebo could arguably be said to be similar to a conjurer. I myself have worked as a clinician in double blind studies and pushed....Talked up.....Placebos.

 

 

Hope this helps.

[Dave Moore]

Does not help, but a good answer, Very few people are at all aware that placeboes are increasing in efficacy.

I would guess, through my own experience, that almost none of the public know anything about the increase.

In fact, out of dozens I've asked, none I polled had ever heard of this information.

 

I just saw a response here (now deleted?) where the first respondent appeared not to have heard of this.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Prometheus]

If an effective treatment is available then it may be deemed unethical to withhold that treatment to give either untested or placebo medication. Some trials will test the untested med against this known treatment instead of placebo. Perhaps the phenomena the OP is referring to is conflating this practice?

 

 

Too,the persuasiveness of the test clinicians dispensing the placebo as likely better in their presentations.

 

Which is why the clinicians are blind to whether treatment or placebo is being administered in the vast majority of trials. A trial needs a very good reason not to double-blind, otherwise it will not even get past set-up.

[Velocity_Boy]

Does not help, but a good answer, Very few people are at all aware that placeboes are increasing in efficacy.

I would guess, through my own experience, that almost none of the public know anything about the increase.

In fact, out of dozens I've asked, none I polled had ever heard of this information.

 

I just saw a response here (now deleted?) where the first respondent appeared not to have heard of this.

Why doesn't my answer help? It's the correct one. What do you not get about this? Placebos are NoT getting any better. They are still and have always been totally inert, thus capable of exerting no physiological effects on the user,corner than a psychosomatic one. Otherwise known as the placebo effect. Like I said in my OP.

And I was taking your word that there has been a trend of more people being cooked by them. But now I'm not sure you were even correct about that and am gonna research it. The more I think about it that would be very very difficult to do a comprehensive and objective study on. And since you've supplied no link now despite being asked twice, I am leaning toward this bring a troll thread.

[Dave Moore]

The Harvard Univ. Group is probably the best funded and staffed organization in the world. They have done numerous studies that show how doctor bedside manner is certainly a placebo effect, and as such, they would be unlikely to be so careless as to corrupt their own studies in that way.

And of course, studies are done double-blind with controls where no pill is given.

[Phi for All]

Does not help, but a good answer, Very few people are at all aware that placeboes are increasing in efficacy.

I would guess, through my own experience, that almost none of the public know anything about the increase.

In fact, out of dozens I've asked, none I polled had ever heard of this information.

 

I just saw a response here (now deleted?) where the first respondent appeared not to have heard of this.

 

No responses were deleted. What are you on about?

 

And no, you don't get to claim this is a fact after you've been asked for citations to back yourself up. Still haven't seen any evidence, and I agree with Velocity Boy that if anything, it's the placebo effect that has changed. The placebos themselves have not changed.

[Velocity_Boy]

The Harvard Univ. Group is probably the best funded and staffed organization in the world. They have done numerous studies that show how doctor bedside manner is certainly a placebo effect, and as such, they would be unlikely to be so careless as to corrupt their own studies in that way.

And of course, studies are done double-blind with controls where no pill is given.

Still no link, an now you show you don't even know how a double blind study works. LOL. Yes, a real med IS given in them.

 

And I see you believe in water memory? As in homeopathy?

 

LOL.

 

I'm done here. Adios troll.

[Dave Moore]

I haven't yet learned how to drop a link here. I apologize. I gave you the search terms. Also, I can only post after a certain period of time, as you must know.

No, the comment wasn't deleted. I am just new to the forum. Why don't you both be more polite and welcoming?

Regarding water memory,I suggested the poster look into it. I didn't claim it worked. Stick to the topic.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

I haven't yet learned how to drop a link here.

 

 

Yeah, the technology of copying and pasting text is pretty daunting (Ctrl-C then Ctrl-V).

 

Anyway, here is one report on it with several plausible hypotheses for the reason: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34572482

And an interesting review of the placebo effect in medical trials: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1572/1889

Edited March 14, 2017 by Strange

[Dave Moore]

I'm done here too. Is this forum funded by the Cochrane foundation? The Amazing Randi Foundation?

You all seem to be hand picked to survive the sifting process. I haven't yet met anyone that isn't absolutely cynical. would be unusual for so many to be so cynical. Here, all are.

I find this to be interesting.

You all seem to have gone to the Rush Limbaugh school of shill study. There's a point where super-cynicism actually borders on retardation, or dishonesty.

[Strange]

I'm done here too. Is this forum funded by the Cochrane foundation? The Amazing Randi Foundation?

You all seem to be hand picked to survive the sifting process. I haven't yet met anyone that isn't absolutely cynical. would be unusual for so many to be so cynical. Here, all are.

I find this to be interesting.

You all seem to have gone to the Rush Limbaugh school of shill study. There's a point where super-cynicism actually borders on retardation, or dishonesty.

 

 

Hey, I dug out the evidence that it is a real effect. Other postulated hypotheses for the reason. Some asked for the evidence you failed to supply.

 

Those all seem entirely reasonable critical responses and points for discussion. I'm not sure what else you expected from a science site.

[Dave Moore]

You again, Strange? You've had your chance. Now, unless that physics thread is erased, you will be seen as an embarrassment to yourself for a long time. You did exactly as predicted, preening and gloating and AVOIDING the issue at any cost.

Anyone with an open mind could see that. You failed, as predicted.

[swansont]

I haven't yet met anyone that isn't absolutely cynical.

Skepticism is part of the job description. Welcome to science.

[StringJunky]

....How do you know e.g. that new drugs aren't just less effective in comparison, and we're trying to treat diseases more prone to the placebo effect?

I frequent a pharmaceutical news site and I think this is the case. With each passing year, as the easier conditions find cures, the harder ones come to the fore in the news and the difference in the results between placebo and the tested drugs gets smaller over time due to their increasing lack of efficacy in trials. The drug companies are having to go back to the drawing board a lot more often now.

Edited March 14, 2017 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

I'm done here too. Is this forum funded by the Cochrane foundation? The Amazing Randi Foundation?

You all seem to be hand picked to survive the sifting process. I haven't yet met anyone that isn't absolutely cynical. would be unusual for so many to be so cynical. Here, all are.

I find this to be interesting.

You all seem to have gone to the Rush Limbaugh school of shill study. There's a point where super-cynicism actually borders on retardation, or dishonesty.

 

Dave, you need to know that you painted a target on your own back posting assertions with no citation on a science discussion forum. You took science in school, right? Remember how the preponderance of evidence thing works? We're guilty of assuming you knew how the critical process worked.

 

Perhaps you should ask questions if you aren't sure. And if you are sure about something that's not mainstream science, some evidence to support your position is pretty reasonable, don't you think?

[Dave Moore]

I am having a hard time attaching a link. I still can't.

I am hoping that others here would either help, or at least consider typing in the name of the link, which ought to be a simple task.

The link: placeboes are getting more effective drug makers...

Prozac, darling drug of the nineties, now doing terribly against placeboes.

There are more, you'll see them.

I can't understand what kind of science would prove that it's the easier conditions causing this.

I think they wouldn't be spending billions to discover why if we could just tell them over the telephone to try placeboes against older drugs.

I know it's hard to digest, but since the drug companies will already admit it ain't the drugs that are getting less effective, and big Pharma has a huge stake in the discovery of why placeboes are getting better, well, what is to be said about that?

I don't mind having a target printed on my back, but given that it takes about a split second to Google that link (and many, many more), it seems your job must be winning at all costs if you are too stubborn to Google the terms I provided------- "If Dave can't add a link and I have to type, well he might as well paint a target on his back!"

[DrP]

"tell them over the phone to try a placebo"

 

Placebos don't work like that - you have to be tricked into thinking it may have a chance of working... it is basically faith. The mind believes it has a chance of getting better and the body tries hard to follow suit and comply. I think that's how they work anyway.... you can't just say to someone 'try a placebo'.

[Dave Moore]

Phi for all, Google the link I provided or quit guessing. You don't seem to know anything about placeboes, but you don't mind pretending you do. You might as well paint a big target on your back if you can't back up what you say..

Edited March 15, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Prometheus]

You may be unaware that google personalises searches so there is no guarantee we will recover the same page as you.

[DrP]

"if dave can't add a link...paint a target on his back"

 

Not providing a link is not why you have a target. Your obvious misunderstanding of how any of this works and your soap box style ascertaining that you are right when told you are wrong along with the bossiness of some of your posts is why you are considered as someone who doesn't know anything about this. Nothing at all to do with not providing a link. I do not need to google it - I know what goes on with placebos (well - up to a point, I don't think they are fully understood) Googling about it will just give HUNDREDS of pages of stuff from many differing sources claiming all sorts. If you have a specific claim then post a link. Copy and paste it or type it out.

 

Maybe they are getting better because people believe they have a chance of getting better even with a placebo. It is know these days that the placebo effect is a very real thing... believing it could work is one of the main reason it does work.... better knowledge of this fact is probably why it works more than it used too.

[Strange]

I am having a hard time attaching a link. I still can't.

I am hoping that others here would either help

 

 

See post #12 where I tried to help by posting a couple of links (and just got abuse, but hey ho).

[Dave Moore]

I have to laugh. The link works every time I try it. Are you saying I'm wrong because I don't know how to drop a link here? Are you stupid? Just use the search terms and quit insulting yourself.