Wait, if it’s double-blind, wouldn’t the scientists be unaware of whether he got a placebo or the real drug? Although I suppose this could be after the study has concluded. I would bet that in real studies they record the side effects reported before checking to see if it was the placebo or not!
This is basically like the many tests done on gluten sensitivity, where the people who claimed to have it and thought they were given bread claimed the usual symptoms, when they weren’t given anything of the sort. (And vice versa when they were given something they thought had no gluten, but did, and had no ill effects afterwards).
Sure, but that’s just the placebo effect? I thought the double-blind process referred to something else in particular (hence the “double” part of the blind):
A double-blind study blinds both the subjects as well as the researchers to the treatment allocation [1]
In any case, I was mostly just curious, don’t intend to nit-pick the title :)
Source?
This is all I could find on the subject:
nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), has resurfaced in the literature, fueling a debate on the appropriateness of the GFD for people without celiac disease. Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583468/
And:
NCGS is included in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.[3][4] The definition and diagnostic criteria of non-celiac gluten sensitivity were debated and established by three consensus conferences.[4][14][15][16][17] However, as of 2019, there remained much debate in the scientific community as to whether NCGS was a distinct clinical disorder.[18]
So there’s definitely debate in the community about it, I would love to see some of these many tests done to prove it was not being caused by gluten if you could point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.
Here’s one of the well known examples: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23648697/
It should be noted that I’m not saying there’s no evidence for a non-celiac response. Just that all the evidence for it being gluten is minimal to non-existent. FODMAPs are one of the primary areas of focus at the moment as actually being responsible and all the claims about it being gluten largely being misinformation that is being socially perpetuated.
Great source, thanks.
So it’s more like all this time people were just guessing it was the gluten and it kinda fell into popular culture and now we have to fight against that?
Basically. Especially since if it is FODMAPs, that’s an entirely different profile of foods to be concerned about that only partially overlap with gluten foods.
What’s really crazy is that sometimes the placebo can still bring people relief even after knowing that it’s a placebo
Yeah. Though you ethically can’t try to use placebo as a medical treatment, because it’s inconsistent in whether it does anything and is essentially trying to not treat the patient at all with known methods of treatment.
It is not completely excluded. For cases where the ‘standard’ treatment did not work or does not exist, placebo treatment can be used under the condition, that the patient is informed that they will be given placebo.
Both of the scientists are actually legally blind so this all still checks out
Single blind studies do exist though… For some reason.
If the experimenter never really interacts with the participants and there is no subjective measurement being made there isn’t really any benefit to being double blind, it’s just overhead at that point
Well then, how will they gloat and laugh in the participant’s face like in the comic?
And they’re two scientists so it’s really double single blinded win!
Yes, I think some treatments cannot be done without the scientist knowing.
Downvoted for not knowing what double blind means.
Wrong answer: Researches who are blind in both eyes only give the medication to participants who are also blind in both eyes, thus making them unable to read the patient information leaflet.
Correct answer: It is a research design in which both the participants and the researchers are unaware of who is receiving the treatment and who is in the control group
There is a little bit of wiggle-room because “double-blind” isn’t fully defined.
It usually means neither the clinician nor the patient know what is being given. But sometimes that is impossible (eg if the comparison is of two types of surgery) so the assessor may be blinded instead. It is also possible to blind the statistician and authors (so they analyse/write up without knowing which treatment is which).
We’ve never got around to making the labels more exact, we just state who is and is not blinded. “Double-blind” and “triple-blind” are often used when two or three parties are blinded but neither term defines exactly who is blinded.
Isn’t it where the testers and testees have no idea which is the placebo during testing? I figured this was at the end
Researchers wouldn’t find out until after they question the subjects.
Scientist: Tell us what side effects the medication caused?
Test subject: my diabetes somehow is acting up again
Scientist: Oh
Yay for the nocebo effect
I like where this went. I expected from the second panel the patient to make a super long list of symptoms like the American medication commercials where they go very fast over a huge list of possible symptoms.
Source: Skeleton Claw
Tumblr archive: https://www.skeletonclaw.com/archive
RSS Feed: https://www.skeletonclaw.com/rss
