Why are Placeboes Getting Better?

[Strange]

Placebos don't work like that - you have to be tricked into thinking it may have a chance of working...

 

 

Actually, I think placebos still work even if you know about the placebo effects and are told you are getting a placebo! (Although not quite as well as being told it is areal thing.)

 

[i guess I should find a reference to back that up ... ]

 

Here we go: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-know-placebo-201607079926

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015591

Edited March 15, 2017 by Strange

[DrP]

Yea - that's what I mean - if you know it can work then it might have a higher chance of working further - thus the increase in success rate of them.... maybe.

QUOTE: "Are you stupid?"

 

OK - I don't mind a mod warning for saying this - but I am just finding you obnoxious right now. OK - I have resisted the desire to use bad language. So I probably won't get a warning.

[Strange]

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.

 

 

No one is saying you are wrong (and certainly not because you can't copy and paste a link).

 

The problem is, if I search for your first suggestion "placeboes are getting more effective drug makers" Google gives me over 1 million results. The first one is the link I posted earlier.

 

If I search for your second suggestion "Prozac, darling drug of the nineties, now doing terribly against placeboes" I get about 63,000 results. But none of them seem directly related to the subject.

[Prometheus]

[i guess I should find a reference to back that up ... ]

 

It's a contentious claim: there is only that one study backing up the claim, and their results are less dramatic than most accompanying headlines (as usual). This blog explores the claim.

[Dave Moore]

Nope. My girlfriend buys placeboes in Holland for headaches and they work fine for her.

But Strange, your problem is that you need to win, regardless of how you do it.

What's worse, the whole lot of you seem to be like that.

Nobody is responding to the actual question, when I have offered a link, if only in search terms.

What is with you people? You call that science?

And I expect, again, all will defend anything but their claims that I am wrong, preferring to respond instead to the ego.

One study?

It isn't worth talking to any of you. The drug companies claim to have spent billions to find out why placeboes are getting better.

The moderator can do whatever he/she wants, but I would only ask he/she actually read the whole thread and ask if any of you are doing more than wasting time judging me and avoiding the issue.

If the mod still has a problem I guess he or she can tell me why.

Until then. seems to me the question is valid. I didn't say you guys were stupid, did I?

 

And Strange, um... Science Based Medicine? The name alone implies an ax to grind. Cherry pick, but answer the simple question:

 

Why would the drug companies spend so much money if they could just go to your link and find out what's really going on?

Edited March 15, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

But Strange, your problem is that you need to win, regardless of how you do it.

 

 

I have been trying to help by finding and pasting the link you were unable to. But that's OK.

Here are a few more links based on your first search suggestion:

 

https://www.wired.com/2009/08/ff-placebo-effect/

https://www.themonthly.com.au/placebos-are-getting-more-effective-drug-makers-are-desperate-know-why-3312

 

 

 

Nobody is responding to the actual question

 

Almost all the posts in this thread have been discussing the idea and why it might be. There have been a few other interesting points made about other aspects of the placebo effect.

 

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

 

Probably not. There seem to be a number of plausible hypothesis (here and in the linked articles). If all of those were disproved, then yes it could be some new science.

 

 

And I expect, again, all will defend anything but their claims that I am wrong, preferring to respond instead to the ego.

 

I can't see a single post where someone has said you are wrong. But maybe I'm wrong (I often am).

[StringJunky]

But Strange, your problem is that you need to win, regardless of how you do it.

Nope. You need to look beyond your nose:

 

 

Strange:

 

OK. I don't really know anything about the relationship between failure to learn language and cognitive development. So I am happy to accept I am wrong there.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103440-our-brain/?p=976336

Edited March 15, 2017 by StringJunky

[Dave Moore]

1) If placeboes aren't increasing in efficacy, why have drug companies spent so much money trying to figure out why not?

 

2) How come older drugs such as Prozac have been found to be much worse against placeboes recently?

 

I have provided search terms, best I can do with apologies.

 

Respectfully, DM

Edited March 15, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

OK - lets start again.

 

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

 

Personally I think it is because people know that they have an effect from the results of earlier trials. Part of the reason they work is because we believe we have a chance of getting the drug that will make us better.... So - knowing that a placebo can make you better as well as the actual drug could instil confidence in the patient that they WILL get something from the trial even if they do not get the drug and thus their health improves through this belief regardless to whether or not they received the placebo or the drug.

 

Do not ask me to explain the placebo effect - no one can. I have always thought it was due to strong belief/faith... believe it hard enough and you can get well - prayers works in the same way I think.

 

 

 

Regarding your points above:

1 - no-one has said that they aren't giving more positive results.

 

2 - If placebos are getting better results in all tests then we would expect all drugs to take a hit in their performance against the placebo no? I thought that would be obvious.

Edited March 15, 2017 by DrP

[dimreepr]

My girlfriend buys placeboes in Holland for headaches and they work fine for her.

 

 

Can you buy a placebo (tic tac's maybe), or is that what they call weed over there?

[Strange]

One study?

It isn't worth talking to any of you. The drug companies claim to have spent billions to find out why placeboes are getting better.

 

 

That was a comment on MY post, not yours (I haven't had a chance to look at that link yet - but it may be time for me to admit I am wrong again!)

 

 

 

And Strange, um... Science Based Medicine? The name alone implies an ax to grind.

 

I didn't say anything about science based medicine, did I?

 

 

Cherry pick, but answer the simple question:

 

Why would the drug companies spend so much money if they could just go to your link and find out what's really going on?

 

The link is reporting on the research the drug companies are doing - I assume there is more going on that will be reported one day. (Not that the articles are from 2009 to 2016.)

[Dave Moore]

I've already answered the question, Dr P. I have polled dozens of people and none of them have even heard that placeboes seem to be getting twice as good as they used to be.

You could attack the researchers, but most of them work for drug companies, who would be the most apt to avoid corrupting tests.

Two questions. See recent post.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

Also, worth noting that the articles I read said that this effect had only been seen in the US. I don't know if that means it has only occurred there or just hasn't been observed elsewhere.

I've already answered the question, Dr P. I have polled dozens of people and none of them have even heard that placeboes seem to be getting twice as good as they used to be.

 

I certainly hadn't heard of it. So thanks for bringing it to my/our attention.

 

 

 

You could attack the researchers, but most of them work for drug companies, who would be the most apt to avoid corrupting tests.

 

Why would anyone attack the researchers?

[DrP]

Why wouldn't the drug companies research it? It clearly is a real effect, so it would be worth understanding it. Of course it warrants research.

 

re "only in the US" - this isn't the result of just a single test is it? lol. Anyway - I guess that's why we need a link.

 

 

"already answered the question DrP"... Where? What post was it I cannot see it. You gave your own opinion as to why the placebo effect has seen an increase in successful results in recent trials? I think I must have missed that.

[Dave Moore]

Strange, the link I read that you provided was from 'Science Based Medicine"

That is a typical Amazing Randi type website. Cynical as can be.

Please!

I asked two questions. Nobody will answer them.

[DrP]

So the answer to the two questions you posted is still the same:

 

1 - no one has said they aren't giving better results - so why WOULDN'T the drug companies research it - seems obvious they would because it works and could be VERY useful if we understood it.

 

2 - Older drugs could actually be failing as we become immune to them (Just speculation)... but what is more likely imo is that because the placebo is getting more positives, this then would give the drugs being tested a stiffer benchmark to test against.

 

 

So what is your point? What do you think is going on?

Edited March 15, 2017 by DrP

[Dave Moore]

Sorry, Strange. I forgot to say what I thought.

I don't know. I could guess, but that wouldn't be productive, to throw you a piece of raw meat like that to knish your teeth on.

I asked the question because I wanted to see others' views.

So far, I know what you would like to believe, but nobody has said, 'Gee, that is a good question. By golly, I can't figure it out!"

THAT would be a scientific answer, instead of, "They aren't getting better! I haven't studied placeboes but try changing my mind!"

 

I'm sorry, Dr P, but regarding #1, I was getting the impression that everyone so far had an opinion that it had to be faulty testing going on. Should we not look back and see if I'm wrong in saying that?

 

 

Dr P: How can your response to #2 make sense? Are you saying the drug companies wouldn't have screened for people who took the drug before? You assume such ridiculous sloppiness on the part of the drug companies? We might as well all go home.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

No-one has said that the effect seen isn't increasing - we just asked for a citation to support the claim. Velocity Boy said that he thought the statement inaccurate, but not wrong. All of this misunderstanding would have been avoided if you linked to or at least quoted from a link or typed out a url to the source of your information.

 

Lets hear your guess as to why. That's how discussion works. It isn't raw meat - I have told you why I think it is the case and you are free to debunk what I wrote, to agree with it or to disagree with it. That's how communication works. IF you claim for a fact that you KNOW why without any support, then yes, you might have a hard time.... but why would you do that. It is well known that the effect isn't completely understood - but that doesn't mean brain fairies are responsible for it. ;-)

EDIT to reply to the edit in post 42.

 

 

QUOTE:" DrP - how can your response to #2 make sense?"

 

I reckon that the drugs aren't doing so well in tests vs the placebo because people are showing a more positive response to the placebo so the benchmark for those drugs has risen (if the claim that responses to placebos have become more positive is true). I am not saying this is a fact - I am suggesting it as a possibility.

 

The reason that the effect itself seems to be happening more positively is due to people actually being aware of the effect nowadays because information is more readily available. The fact that the placebo works better when the patient believes he has a chance of getting the drug is evidence (imo) that belief and positive thinking go a long way to helping with the whole, very complex, healing process of the body. So - if the patients these days are aware of the placebo effect - they might start to believe that they can heal better whether they get the drug or not (as they know that the placebo effect is a real thing), thus - the placebo pills in trials are giving higher positives. Again - not fact - just my line of thinking - which I believe is what you asked for.

Edited March 15, 2017 by DrP

[Dave Moore]

No. I am not going to say what I think is the reason.

I now know that nobody here has any idea why. I wanted to see what ideas were out there, and I have become more convinced than ever that it isn't sloppy test protocols such as using test subjects who have already used and hence become somewhat immune to Prozac's efficacy, and it isn't due to the public being inundated with news that placeboes are better because I've not found one citizen yet who would serve to tip the scales of the psychosomatic variable, and I don't think the drug companies or any real researcher would be so sloppy that they wouldn't ask people before testing if they had heard anything about placeboes before.

I do see that certain reasons are absolutely off the table for science to even consider, and that is evidence to me that I was right, that science is failing to answer questions that could one day be answered by testing, but will never get the chance if you lot represent the pinnacle of curiosity and open-mindedness of modern science.

It isn't that no proof is available. It has to do with the inability of science to approach subjects they know little about with an open mind.

So many people say they couldn't imagine why science wouldn't consider fairly investigating every avenue fairly, but time and time again, I find that science is not at all curious, but instead, thinks only inside the box.

I want to thank all of you for your input, especially Strange, who has been most beneficial to me in reinforcing what I have already been convinced is true.

I will use this thread in the future to show people by example what happens when you ask science a question like the thread title.

[Strange]

Strange, the link I read that you provided was from 'Science Based Medicine"

 

 

The links I posted are from the BBC and Wired Magazine (I just realised that the third one was just linking to the Wired article). Someone else posted to Science Based Medicine.

 

 

That is a typical Amazing Randi type website. Cynical as can be.

 

You mean sceptical and demanding evidence? Sorry if you don't like it but that is how science works.

 

 

I asked two questions. Nobody will answer them.

 

See post #34 for one answer.

 

1) If placeboes aren't increasing in efficacy, why have drug companies spent so much money trying to figure out why not?

 

It seems they are increasing in effectiveness and drug companies seem to be researching this.

2) How come older drugs such as Prozac have been found to be much worse against placeboes recently?

I have no idea. But there were some possible explanations from the researchers in the article I read.

[Phi for All]

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..

 

That's a search parameter, not a link. Link to a specific article that supports what you say so we can take a look at it. That tool is on the editing bar.

 

I do know a bit about placeboes. I'm currently part of a 3 year double-blind study for a drug used in certain protocols, and I'm 99% sure I'm on the placebo, mostly because I DON'T feel the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory effect I'm supposed to. I can't link you to this ongoing study, but I can tell you that the sugar pills aren't the part that's changed. Placebo effect is what is evolving.

[CharonY]

With regard to antidepressants there is one important factor that has been emerged over the last decade or so is that antidepressants, if looked through the lens of large meta-analyses, are not terribly effective to begin with. It appears that they are only somewhat effective in certain subsets of patients and that initial studies looking exclusively at statistical differences, but not so much on effect size (i.e. clinical significance) overestimated their effectiveness relative to placebos. That is not entirely non-controversial but seems to be an increasing trend in numerous publications.

 

Another thing to consider is that double blind studies are not necessarily perfect. There is an interesting paper from the 80s (Rabkin et al. Psychiatry Res 1986) in which patients and doctors correctly distinguished between placebos and drugs (78% and 87%. respectively). One simple reason could be that sugar pills do not elicit expected side effects which could skew results. It is an interesting area of research, though.

 

Edit: crossposted but Phi's post basically outlines one fundamental issue of these studies.

Edited March 15, 2017 by CharonY

[dimreepr]

 

That's a search parameter, not a link. Link to a specific article that supports what you say so we can take a look at it. That tool is on the editing bar.

 

I do know a bit about placeboes. I'm currently part of a 3 year double-blind study for a drug used in certain protocols, and I'm 99% sure I'm on the placebo, mostly because I DON'T feel the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory effect I'm supposed to. I can't link you to this ongoing study, but I can tell you that the sugar pills aren't the part that's changed. Placebo effect is what is evolving.

 

Maybe your critical thinking skills, not only blocks any potential placebo effects but, perversely, may also block any beneficial effects of the real drug (anti-placebo).

Edited March 15, 2017 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

Another thing to consider is that double blind studies are not necessarily perfect. There is an interesting paper from the 80s (Rabkin et al. Psychiatry Res 1986) in which patients and doctors correctly distinguished between placebos and drugs (78% and 87%. respectively). One simple reason could be that sugar pills do not elicit expected side effects which could skew results. It is an interesting area of research, though.

 

Edit: crossposted but Phi's post basically outlines one fundamental issue of these studies.

 

I think the managers of my study are looking for something like this. Since I mentioned it the first time, they always ask me if I still think I'm on the placebo.

Maybe your critical thinking skills, not only blocks any potential placebo effects but, perversely, may also block any beneficial effects (anti-placebo).

 

I've taken meds in the past that did wonders for the aches and twinges that happen as we age. This pill I take for the study should do the same but doesn't, ergo placebo.

[CharonY]

And with some drugs often strong side effects are anticipated, which makes things even worse.