Randomized, double-blind drug trials may have no validity

M

markings

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
596
A new study in Science Translational Medicine has cast doubt over the scientific validity of nearly all randomized, double-blind placebo controlled studies involving pharmaceuticals used on human beings.
It turns out that many pharmaceuticals only work because people expect them to, not because they have any "real" chemical effect on the body.
Click to expand...
http://www.naturalnews.com/031451_drug_trials_placebo_effect.html
 
What a load of crud. I dont trust the reporting from that news site. Theyre trying to sell me bs. Theres absolutely no references anywhere in that article (except referencing their own crap). I promise you most pain killers work... not because you believe they do, but because they actually work ;)

Yes, everyone knows the power of the placebo effect... Which is why you HAVE double blind studies. Duh.
 
Last edited:
Very different interpretation of the findings compared to other, less biased organisations.

See here: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/649986.html

It hasnt cast doubt over them, its just that the placebo affect can work in reverse too, which no one knew about.

EDIT: For other sceptics, Science Translational Medicine is a multidisciplinary medical journal establised by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This work was reported elsewhere, but not sensationalized like it was here.
 
Jamal said:
An obvious flaw in most blinded placebo studies is that the placebo is inert. There is a measure of unblinding in that patients taking the active compound experience more pronounced side effects. Patients and their caregivers in the active arm may suspect they are taking the active compound due to relatively worse side effects while patients and their caregivers in the placebo arm may suspect they are receiving the placebo due to relatively fewer side effects. Some trials try to address this problem by using active placebos, substances which are not pharmacologically inert and induce unpleasant side effects.
Click to expand...

Oh no! The study is invalidated because the placebo didn't affect the participants as much as the actual drug and they suspected (but didn't know) that they might be on the active drug! This makes perfect sense! Wait... no it doesn't.
 
But homeopathy doesnt do anything. I might as well just drink a glass of water, since thats literally what a homeopathic treatment is.

Remember, modern medicine always aims to be better than a placebo. So, however well a placebo works, modern medicine aims to beat that.

This study doesnt say that modern medicine doesnt work at all, just that the placebo response works differently to how we thought. Namely, it can also work in negative ways, as well as positive. However, that doesnt mean its impossible to beat the placebo effect, to make something that performs better than it.
 
Last edited:
Jamal said:
It shows that patients in the active arm may benefit more strongly from placebo response than patients in the placebo arm.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't because just because someone THINKS they're in the active arm doesn't mean they are.
 
Jamal said:
Homeopathy and various other alternative treatments offer an excellent way to bottle placebo response.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Homeopathy has been disproven as a load of bunk. It is in that case even worse than the placebo. At least the folks receiving the placebo aren't sure it is inert.
 
Jamal said:
It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.
Click to expand...

So this research paper you have provided is more than likely false. No worries then.

Prove that the false claims come from flaws in double blind studies or your paper means absolutely nothing.
 
Jamal said:
In my opinion placebos do constitute a legitimate form of treatment because placebo treatment is generally more effective than no treatment. In real life it is the n=1 trial on oneself that matters. Do you tell the millions of people who find relief from illness when using alternative treatments that they were wrong to have gotten better, that they should go back to being sick, because the treatment they received was not a legitimate form of medicine?
Click to expand...

They're not better. They were never really ill in the first place if a placebo effect has "cured" them of something. Of course it is more effective than no treatment but it is nowhere near as effective as real treatment. In those circumstances I would tell those people that they should go for real treatment and not woo. Are you telling me you would tell someone to go for a placebo over real treatment?
 
Last edited:
Jamal said:
Using inert placebos allows patients and their caregivers to more accurately correlate whether they are in the active arm or in the placebo arm.
Click to expand...

It allows them to speculate about which arm they are in. Never to know. It isn't accurate it is just a guess with slightly more observations which doesn't make it any more accurate in this context so please don't hide behind weasel words like "accurate".
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
What a load of crud. I dont trust the reporting from that news site. Theyre trying to sell me bs. Theres absolutely no references anywhere in that article (except referencing their own crap). I promise you most pain killers work... not because you believe they do, but because they actually work ;)

Yes, everyone knows the power of the placebo effect... Which is why you HAVE double blind studies. Duh.
Click to expand...
+1000 What a load of BS
 
so double blinded randomised controlled trials are bad because they arent in favour of a positive placebo effect? seriously wtf?

you do realise not all DB RCTs are IP against placebos right? some if not most are against the 'gold standard' treatment ie a new asthma medication vs salbutamol, new diabetes meds vs metformin, new allergic rhinitis nasal spray vs fluticasone. thats all active ingredients NOT PLACEBOS. but again it easier to vilify western medicine as evil with a lack of truth. i challenge you to try and get a trial authorised for a new hypertension drug (for example) vs nothing. ethics committees will be all over you like a rash.
 
Jamal said:
Homeopathy and chiropractic are forms of Western medicine too having originated in Germany and Canada respectively.
Click to expand...

...and have been debunked countless times. and no it is not a part of science driven western medicine.
 
Yes and homeopathy is still a crock of sh 1 t. And there still isnt a shred of evidence for it.

EDIT: Besides, stop with the semantics and strawman. Its common knowledge that when people say Western medicine, they mean mainstream medicine based upon the scientific method. Pretty much everything else, irrespective of geographical origin, is then complementary and alternative medicine. Some of that works, but could still be improved through the scientific method, some of it, such as homeopathy, works no better than a placebo. That is to say, it does nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X