Why are Placeboes Getting Better?

[Lord Antares]

 

If people are buying placebos because they think they make them feel better, then presumably they make them feel better! This may be something other than the real placebo effect, closer to self-hypnosis, perhaps.

 

 

This doesn't make sense to me. If they know they are buying placebo (i.e. nothing at all) and it actually makes them feel better, then isn't this the same as just wanting to feel better? What would be the difference between what they know to be placebo and eating an apple which they believe will make them feel better?

 

If it can work this way (and it is strange if it does), then why spend the money at all on fake pills? Why not concentrate on feeling better? Or on believing you will feel better? Thar hardly makes sense.

[Strange]

 

This doesn't make sense to me. If they know they are buying placebo (i.e. nothing at all) and it actually makes them feel better, then isn't this the same as just wanting to feel better? What would be the difference between what they know to be placebo and eating an apple which they believe will make them feel better?

 

If it can work this way (and it is strange if it does), then why spend the money at all on fake pills? Why not concentrate on feeling better? Or on believing you will feel better? Thar hardly makes sense.

 

 

I guess (if it does work) it works because they are more convinced by taking something that looks like medicine rather than a mint or an apple.

 

I don't know if anyone has done any research into this aspect (I'm sure they have - and someone who cares could find it )

Strange, the placebo effect is the same as the real drug effect.

 

Well, not quite. The placebo is chemically inert (if you look at the websites of companies who sell them, they say this explicitly). So they have no physical effect.

 

And the effect can vary from possibly being close to that of a real drug (I suppose) to having zero effect (e.g. a placebo vaccination would not prevent you catching a disease).

 

 

It would be unscientific to say this couldn't be true.

 

Well, it is a hypothesis. All it needs now is evidence.

[Prometheus]

If it can work this way (and it is strange if it does), then why spend the money at all on fake pills? Why not concentrate on feeling better? Or on believing you will feel better? Thar hardly makes sense.

 

Try spending hundreds on some quack medicine and you'll soon be trying to convince yourself it was worth it.

 

No really, i did feel some benefit. Really i did. Honest, look i couldn't bend my arm like that before. Well it works for me and that's all that counts...

[Dave Moore]

Strange, I said the real pill is no different from the placebo. I mean, go back to when the drug was formulated. Many pills don't work well against placeboes, and often nowadays, they are practically the same as placeboes. If they are better enough in tests, they can go to the market. The percentage they are better isn't often much these days.

So the real pill is, say 10% better. But say the placebo, following what's already happening, will be as good as the "real" pill in five years. Both appear inert to me. You can no linger say, "real" pill.

The reason "real" pills are considered real at all is because somebody thought certain ingredients could be chemically significant.

They fail often against placeboes, however. They could be used as better placeboes than chalk or sugar.

Why does everyone think that placeboes are effective because of belief but 'real" pills are effective because they have "real" ingredients in them??

 

The only reason is the belief of researchers that "real" pills are not curing by belief is skewing the results (by a small margin) to favor the "real" pills still.

Every bit of it is hypnosis. We are hypnotized to believe that "real" pills are real.

Placebo successes are another hypnosis, and so both are the same. Manifestation through belief is the obvious answer---- on a massive scale involving millions of people and a small scale where one person is involved.

Perhaps the same reverse causality seen in delayed choice is present in real cultural situations. A drug might do better because it is later announced as effective by more believable people??

The probability spread would have to do with the people later observing against the researchers who already know, always a different mix. Results would never be easy to calculate, but tests can be done to prove this.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

Ibuprofen really really works and works well against severe muscle pain for almost everyone that needs it. This isn't a placebo effect at all.

 

 

QUOTE..."the energetic rejection would be overwhelming"

 

Not if you showed with evidence that it worked. If it was baseless claims made from speculation and day dreaming that everyone else thought rubbish then yes it would be called out as BS as is right.

 

 

Sorry for calling you a dick earlier in post 63 - it was rude of me.

[Dave Moore]

No problem, drP.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Dave Moore

[swansont]

This doesn't make sense to me. If they know they are buying placebo (i.e. nothing at all) and it actually makes them feel better, then isn't this the same as just wanting to feel better? What would be the difference between what they know to be placebo and eating an apple which they believe will make them feel better?

 

If it can work this way (and it is strange if it does), then why spend the money at all on fake pills? Why not concentrate on feeling better? Or on believing you will feel better? Thar hardly makes sense.

 

I remember running across this.

"The Placebo Effect Works Even When People Know the Pills Are Fake"

 

I will copy the link and paste it here

http://gizmodo.com/the-placebo-effect-works-even-when-people-know-the-pill-1787875797

 

One thing to point out here and I think it applies to the thread as a whole, is that (again, as far as I've seen) the placebo effects are in regard to pain medications, and not other afflictions. I think that has some significance and I'm not sure that this has been pointed out in the discussion, but with all the sniping going on, I may have missed it. This is a detail missing in the OP, which made a much more general claim.

[StringJunky]

 

 

I remember running across this.

"The Placebo Effect Works Even When People Know the Pills Are Fake"

 

I will copy the link and paste it here

http://gizmodo.com/the-placebo-effect-works-even-when-people-know-the-pill-1787875797

 

One thing to point out here and I think it applies to the thread as a whole, is that (again, as far as I've seen) the placebo effects are in regard to pain medications, and not other afflictions. I think that has some significance and I'm not sure that this has been pointed out in the discussion, but with all the sniping going on, I may have missed it. This is a detail missing in the OP, which made a much more general claim.

My comments have been wrt to placebos as a whole. WRT to analgesics, placebos and self-suggestion can be quite effective. I've done it with small, hard sweets and pretended it was triple-strength Ibuprofen.

Edited March 16, 2017 by StringJunky

[swansont]

My comments have been wrt to placebos as a whole. WRT to analgesics, placebos and self-suggestion can be quite effective. I've done it with small, hard sweets and pretended it was triple-strength Ibuprofen.

But the only examples in play are for pain. It's hard to make a general argument when some of the participants in the discussion are only citing a subcategory. If we're going to only talk about pain, then let's do that. It changes the context of some of the points that have been raised thus far.

[CharonY]

But the only examples in play are for pain. It's hard to make a general argument when some of the participants in the discussion are only citing a subcategory. If we're going to only talk about pain, then let's do that. It changes the context of some of the points that have been raised thus far.

 

I think one should add that that study (IIRC) is mostly about chronic pain. The latter can be managed by a wide range of treatments and in many (most) cases it is unclear why sometimes one thing works and another does not.

 

In an earlier post shortly the seemingly increase in efficacy was discussed, but with regard to antidepressants.

[swansont]

In an earlier post shortly the seemingly increase in efficacy was discussed, but with regard to antidepressants.

Ah, right. There's some overlap there, I think.

 

But no examples of e.g. studies of a cancer treatment showing improved placebo effectiveness.

[Strange]

One thing to point out here and I think it applies to the thread as a whole, is that (again, as far as I've seen) the placebo effects are in regard to pain medications, and not other afflictions. I think that has some significance and I'm not sure that this has been pointed out in the discussion, but with all the sniping going on, I may have missed it. This is a detail missing in the OP, which made a much more general claim.

 

 

Some points like that have been made, but not so explicitly.

 

I assume the placebo effect is strongest where there is a psychological element to either the symptom or how it is reported. In the case of painkillers or antidepressants, those may both be true. The only real way of knowing how effective the drug/placebo is, is to ask the patient how they feel.

 

On the other hand, there are things that can be measured and will be completely unaffected by a placebo (vaccination, chemotherapy, bone density (bisphosphonates), etc.)

 

And then there are things in between. For example, blood pressure can be measured objectively but can be affected by psychological factors.

[Dave Moore]

There isn't a difference between hypnosis and placeboes in effect. Belief has everything to do with efficacy.

A placebo is, in common usage, anything that would replace accepted medications OR procedures.

That could be the laying on of hands or an empathetic doctor or a sugar pill.

 

I would personally like to see a test for reduction of pain without the patient's knowledge that anyone is doing any test. For example, a test I call the ice cream sundae test.

 

Children (age seven, e.g.) are very suggestable. A group of them, perhaps one hundred, are seated in a room and have bogus wires connected between their wrists and a very imposing electronic looking machine in the corner of the room. They watch a monitor.

Still shots of a group of perhaps twenty patients are shown on the monitor. The kids are encouraged to send healing energy through the wire as they gaze at the patients one by one. This is done for twenty minutes. The kids are told that if their group can make the patients pain go away, they will all get an ice cream sundae (they get one anyway. After all, they are just kids).

The patients are soon thereafter asked if they are feeling better. Another control group of patients who weren't in the pictures are also asked.

The test would show if patients could have pain relief through blind action at a distance, that is, without knowing they are the target of intent alone.

This is known as telekinesis, but actually, it is belief that is the key variable.

If expectation of strangers could reduce pain, then the observer's effect might be explained.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

This is known as telekinesis, but actually, it is belief that is the key variable.

 

 

Telekinesis is moving (-kinesis) things at a distance (tele-).

 

However, every controlled experiment to detect such effects has failed to find anything. But do try and organise the experiment you suggest; another data point is always valuable.

[John Cuthber]

https://www.google.co.uk

Just checking on something here...

Yep: you can simply type a link into the reply, and it will work

Also, as far as I can tell Dave hasn't answered Dr P's question.

He asked "Dave - why do YOU think placebos seem more effective these days compared to trials in the past?!

Edited March 16, 2017 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

A placebo is, in common usage, anything that would replace accepted medications OR procedures.

 

No, not so much. Exercise isn't a medical procedure and isn't a placebo, but has effects on some afflictions.

[wtf]

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

Remember, the brand placebos work much better than the generic ones.

[John Cuthber]

Dave

OK, to be fair, the question was ambiguous.

I was not seeking to find your explanation of any change in the placebo effect.

I was seeking to find your reason for thinking that such a change has actually taken place.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have split of a whole chunk of posts to Speculations which were just getting too silly. Let's concentrate on the OP topic and try not to go down any philosophical rabbit holes

 

Any more branches and hijacks will just get trashed

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

OK - back on topic placebos please

[Strange]

Dave

OK, to be fair, the question was ambiguous.

I was not seeking to find your explanation of any change in the placebo effect.

I was seeking to find your reason for thinking that such a change has actually taken place.

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26307858

As swansont noted, this was just for pain. And only in the US.

A few comments on this here: https://www.painscience.com/biblio/is-the-placebo-effect-getting-stronger-the-tuttle-kerfuffle.html

 

And some discussion here:

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/american-placebo-255973

http://www.nature.com/news/strong-placebo-response-thwarts-painkiller-trials-1.18511

Edited March 17, 2017 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26307858

As swansont noted, this was just for pain. And only in the US.

A few comments on this here: https://www.painscience.com/biblio/is-the-placebo-effect-getting-stronger-the-tuttle-kerfuffle.html

 

And some discussion here:

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/american-placebo-255973

http://www.nature.com/news/strong-placebo-response-thwarts-painkiller-trials-1.18511

And only for neuropathic pain at that.

 

That's my point. The thread is asking "Why?" when we don't even know "If".

[Dave Moore]

John, the article in Nature points up the problem of geography being the significant variable in placebo efficacy increase,

I am afraid any more to mention my many years of work in mind study that would easily explain the phenomenon.

It saddens me that I have been labelled a kook for attempting to explain my work.

In order to explain the placebo effect and further the increasing placebo effect, and even further the geographical effect would require an explanation of the effect (dare I say?) of belief of researchers themselves.

If I have been rude to anyone, I apologize. I didn't start off that way. I was attacked, often personally, by people who thought I was unable to back up my claims. Moderators have made assumptions as well, calling my work nonsense just because they didn't understand it.

This is a thread in psychology after all, a non-science in my view. I thought I was safe here.

Indeed, the thread was going onto six pages and was a magnet for intelligent contributors who must surely be mystified by the title question.

I fully expect to be kicked off this thread of mine, which died the day I left it. I don't think that was fair. I wonder about motivation.

I will say this to the mod: I will not take offense at insulting behavior if those who do insult me and my work are disciplined by the mod themselves.

I have a lot to offer this subject and my work is provable in testing. It isn't a matter of if but how that testing can be done, considering not only can I not afford to experiment myself, but imagine how difficult it is for me to even approach mainstream groups such as the Harvard Medical school placebo group headed by Ted Kaptchuck. I have written to his email address for over a month every day with no response. His secretary, Deborah Grose, while a very nice person, has not given any indication that she has even approached Ted with my written material, or otherwise she would have told me he wasn't interested.

I therefore did some detective work and wrote to him by snail mail at home, not two days ago. We shall see.

In the meantime, the question has not been answered, why are placeboes getting better?

My contention (heresy!) is that belief is involved, and not just the belief of patients.

I maintain that proving that to be a true statement cannot be done if the very nature of belief itself is allowed to corrupt testing.

This catch-22 is worth considering by open-minded researchers and forum members alike.

Tests run by super-materialist skeptics will not fare well. Experimentation must be carried out gradually, beginning with a small circle of open-minded researchers. They themselves must be subjectively convinced to give weight to their findings.

Then, absolutely, let the cat out of the bag, into mainstream testing--- objective double-blind with controls.

The very understanding of the power of belief to operate without physical connection, i.e. the observer's effect, is necessary in setting up the experiments properly, so if my experience on this thread so far is any example of how such ideas are treated, the answer to the question of what a placebo really is will never be known.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Dave Moore

[studiot]

This is the first time I have looked at this thread as it concerns a subject area I am not usually interested in, but seems to have generated a deal of activity.

 

I have two things to observe.

 

 

1)

The issue of cutting / pasting and links.

 

The settings on this and some other sites interact adversely with the settings on some windows computers so that the quote button and the paste function do not work.

 

We have more than one thread (including one of my own) involving attempted help from the administrators, moderators and others but despite all the suggestions I still have one Toshiba Satellite Pro laptop that originally sported Windows 7 (now 10) that always suffered from this issue, which has never been resolved.

 

I did resolve it on a Dell Vista machine by reluctantly using a different browser and this may be your only option as it presents a barrier to effective communication and is a bloody nuisance as well.

 

Alternatively perhaps you can make one (trial) post from a different machine just for the links?

 

 

2)

After 5 pages of squabbling where everyone retreated to isolated fortifications and pulled up their respective drawbridges I have learned that the OP wants to discuss alleged indications that large scale drug trials are somehow becoming less effective.

 

This is straightforward applied maths that does interest me and there has been significant level of publication over the last 10 years or so about this.

 

Both by Doctors

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

 

and by other acedemics

 

Standard Deviations - Flawed assumptions, tortured data, and other ways to lie with statistics.

 

Gary Smith

 

I look forward to the OP response, including references to some real material to discuss.

Dave, if you are still having trouble pasting in then I will see what I can do to help, though not with vague invocations to perform searches.

[Dave Moore]

Thanks, Gary. I appreciate the help. It should have worked as I was shown.

 

Regarding faulty testing----- only in the USA? If tests are carried out in Europe, placeboes are seen to be no better than fifteen years ago against new drugs. Drug companies, testing against placeboes in the US are apparently spending billions with a B to find out why placeboes are getting more effective.

The loss to stockholders is such that many billions are being lost over this problem.

The answer isn't that simple.

There is an answer but it has nothing to do with faulty testing. That answer is only plausible because science refuses to think outside of the box. Otherwise, it would be a crazy answer.

The most plausible answer (theorized by science) is that patients have learned that placeboes are getting more effective against drugs and so they psychosomatically are responding by a form of self-hypnosis, but that is also ridiculous because hardly any patients have ever heard of placeboes getting better. I haven't personally met one person who knows anything about placeboes beyond what was known fifteen years ago.

I have offered my own take on what's going on. I won't repeat it. I do not want to be kicked off this thread.

You might try the video, available on Youtube, "Placebo--Cracking the Code Documentary".

Edited March 24, 2017 by Dave Moore