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.
The intro to the Wikipedia article on placebo is quite good. Lots of easily accessible sources often misrepresent the placebo effect. The Wikipedia article does suggest placebo effect improves pain response, but it does say perceived.
If someone says something uses the placebo effect it means it doesn’t work. They may not know that. But a placebo response is our measure for medical treatments that don’t work.
When people say the placebo effect works it’s like a microwave that doesn’t heat food. People hear the ding and tell you the food does feel warmer. The perception is that the broken microwave heats food, but the food isn’t any warmer. We avoid this issue in science by making measurements, but for fields like medicine we often rely on people saying how they feel. This is how the placebo effect corrupts medical studies. People are very unreliable. They also often want to be polite and say they had a positive effect from the treatment. This is doubly so for people that volunteer or buy these types of herbal treatments. They think only idiots would buy or take these things that don’t work, I’m not an idiot so the treatment must be working.
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?
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.
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.
The intro to the Wikipedia article on placebo is quite good. Lots of easily accessible sources often misrepresent the placebo effect. The Wikipedia article does suggest placebo effect improves pain response, but it does say perceived.
If someone says something uses the placebo effect it means it doesn’t work. They may not know that. But a placebo response is our measure for medical treatments that don’t work.
When people say the placebo effect works it’s like a microwave that doesn’t heat food. People hear the ding and tell you the food does feel warmer. The perception is that the broken microwave heats food, but the food isn’t any warmer. We avoid this issue in science by making measurements, but for fields like medicine we often rely on people saying how they feel. This is how the placebo effect corrupts medical studies. People are very unreliable. They also often want to be polite and say they had a positive effect from the treatment. This is doubly so for people that volunteer or buy these types of herbal treatments. They think only idiots would buy or take these things that don’t work, I’m not an idiot so the treatment must be working.
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?
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.
These are and can be dangerous.
Scam artists use it to exploit people. They also stop people seeking proper care.
Just because people are foolish, doesn’t mean they deserve to be defrauded.