Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Placebos not really sugar pills page 2

  1. #11
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,410
    Shop Now
    I think the blame is misplaced in this article. It is the fault of the researchers that they have chosen not to describe the specific placebos they chose to use in their studies. Doing so has resulted in the invalidation of the majority of studies examined for this.

    The CW assumption that placebos are inert and biologically inactive (and thus do not merit consideration) may be very misplaced. In that respect the article is correct.

    But I do not think a conspiracy exists to manipulate results.

  2. #12
    StephenHLi's Avatar
    StephenHLi is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Framingham, MA
    Posts
    179
    Industry has manipulated the intent of placebos. Currently, placebos are the most basic 3rd party comparator. Companies do not want to test new drugs against old drugs in order to protect sales.

    In order for true science and innovation to truly progress, we should test and compare the current best with the new innovation and keep this process going.

    To test and compare to placebo is virtually meaningless.

    I actually no longer believe that placebos ever existed. There is no such thing as placebos in my mind anymore.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •