The placebo effect doesn’t help. It’s just noise in the data collection process. It’s particularly problematic with human trials that rely on subjective evidence. Humans have a bias that actions have effects, even when they don’t (gamblers blowing on dice, wishing on a star etc).
Any intervention will have people think that the outcome has changed because of the intervention. This doesn’t mean the placebo effect helped, it just altered the recorded outcome. If it was a device was used to make the measurement, rather than human opinion, we just call it noise/error.
It’s a common misconception that the placebo effect does something. It does nothing other than artificially increase subjective measurements. Placebo effect is stronger in very subjective medical conditions such as pain, shiny packaging and brand names are reported to provide greater pain relief. Such medicines are so tightly regulated the formulation and supply leaves very little opportunity for medicines to actually have an effect. You don’t see the same effect when it comes to reducing the size of cancer tumours or altering directly measurable quantities.
Doctors aren’t allowed to prescribe placebos in the UK. Because it’s dangerous and a source of corruption. Such as King Charles selling homeopathic services to the NHS. Doctors do recommend such services, they do this primarily to dismiss patients and their issues.
Well, because it financially supports scammers preying on people is why not. And many medical scams aren’t harmless or innocent or may give people a false sense of wellness that can lead to them avoiding real medicine.
As pain is aubjective. The subject believing their pain to be improved is an effect.
For a lot of medical science now, we look not only at medical outcomes but patient perceived outcomes.
Scientists are great at quantifying outcomes and risk evaluation mathematically. People are bad at using that data to decide on treatment, so depend on healthcare professionals to guide them. The communication skills of the healthcare provider are just as important as their clinical skill in many cases. In some cases, even more so.
If someone is happier with their objectively worse outcome, which is the better outcome?
The placebo effect doesn’t help. It’s just noise in the data collection process. It’s particularly problematic with human trials that rely on subjective evidence. Humans have a bias that actions have effects, even when they don’t (gamblers blowing on dice, wishing on a star etc).
Any intervention will have people think that the outcome has changed because of the intervention. This doesn’t mean the placebo effect helped, it just altered the recorded outcome. If it was a device was used to make the measurement, rather than human opinion, we just call it noise/error.
It’s a common misconception that the placebo effect does something. It does nothing other than artificially increase subjective measurements. Placebo effect is stronger in very subjective medical conditions such as pain, shiny packaging and brand names are reported to provide greater pain relief. Such medicines are so tightly regulated the formulation and supply leaves very little opportunity for medicines to actually have an effect. You don’t see the same effect when it comes to reducing the size of cancer tumours or altering directly measurable quantities.
Doctors aren’t allowed to prescribe placebos in the UK. Because it’s dangerous and a source of corruption. Such as King Charles selling homeopathic services to the NHS. Doctors do recommend such services, they do this primarily to dismiss patients and their issues.
Is there somewhere I can read more about this in non technical terms? I never knew that about the placebo effect.
otoh, plenty of folks wear copper bracelets or drink a little apple cider vinegar in the morning without baleful results.
You’re correct, a placebo isn’t a cure, but if it helps someone think they are healthier without causing damage, why not?
edit = to be explicit I mean things that people use that aren’t expensive or dangerous.
Well, because it financially supports scammers preying on people is why not. And many medical scams aren’t harmless or innocent or may give people a false sense of wellness that can lead to them avoiding real medicine.
As pain is aubjective. The subject believing their pain to be improved is an effect.
For a lot of medical science now, we look not only at medical outcomes but patient perceived outcomes.
Scientists are great at quantifying outcomes and risk evaluation mathematically. People are bad at using that data to decide on treatment, so depend on healthcare professionals to guide them. The communication skills of the healthcare provider are just as important as their clinical skill in many cases. In some cases, even more so.
If someone is happier with their objectively worse outcome, which is the better outcome?