Placebos not really sugar pills page

[sbhikes]

I thought this blog post about placebos was interesting.
assertTrue( ): Are Placebos Really Sugar Pills?

[ulnauy]

I didn't know about this. It's not taught in medical school, at least not at mine. Really shocking stuff. We are taught to worship the "double blind placebo controlled study" as what separates "true" allopathic medicine from the complementary, alternative, naturalistic, etc.. The automatic answer when challenged by the effectiveness of a treatment which is not taught in allopathic medicine is: well, there's no double blind placebo controlled study that proves it's effective. The whole concept of placebo is that it should be nothing but a psychological effect.

Anything that is in the placebo MUST be in the actual drug for the whole "placebo-controlled" mantra to make sense.

To be honest, I'm not 100% convinced what is mentioned in that article is true. It's hard to believe. I'd have to see it in other sources before I buy it.

[j3nn]

One more myth of how the state protects us; it knowingly subjects us to countless dangers while proclaiming the exact opposite. Protectionism at its finest.

[sbhikes]

I'm not sure where you are getting the state stuff from. The drug companies are the ones making the placebos.

I thought it was especially laughable the one study that was mentioned where the placebo was olive oil, which is good for the heart and caused people on the placebo to actually improve more than the actual heart drugs being tested.

[MEversbergII]

This practice is an affront to science.

M.

[Tribal Rob]

This practice is an affront to science.

M.

This - I'm not a scientist as such, I just have a science degree and an affront is the best way to describe it without the work F***

[j3nn]

I'm not sure where you are getting the state stuff from. The drug companies are the ones making the placebos.

Aren't FDA regulations (and the countless other laws on the books) supposed to prevent things like this? Instead this occurs right under the nose of the FDA, but in all likelihood it occurs with the consent of the FDA. Much like the FDA approves of many, many drugs that have harmful and often lethal side effects. When prescription drugs are killing people at three times the rate of illicit drugs, who is the FDA looking out for: the people or the drug manufacturers? Couple that with stories like the article in this post and an unknown amount of other transgressions that jeopardize the well-being of the unsuspecting individual, and one can conclude that it is a myth that the government keeps us from danger and is more likely to put us at risk when people learn to trust its authority. The food pyramid, fannie mae, and social "security" are further proof of this.

[peril]

Aren't FDA regulations (and the countless other laws on the books) supposed to prevent things like this? Instead this occurs right under the nose of the FDA, but in all likelihood it occurs with the consent of the FDA. Much like the FDA approves of many, many drugs that have harmful and often lethal side effects. When prescription drugs are killing people at three times the rate of illicit drugs, who is the FDA looking out for: the people or the drug manufacturers? Couple that with stories like the article in this post and an unknown amount of other transgressions that jeopardize the well-being of the unsuspecting individual, and one can conclude that it is a myth that the government keeps us from danger and is more likely to put us at risk when people learn to trust its authority. The food pyramid, fannie mae, and social "security" are further proof of this.

You're joking aren't you. You rail against Government at every opportunity but now you say your complaint is that they aren't protecting individuals properly. Having no government will provide less protection

[Timthetaco]

There are two comments on the blog I'd like to copy here. I think the points are well made.

"I'm confused as to your point.

You seem to be implying that by sneakily using active placebos, the pharma companies are "disturbingly" able to skew their data. But your olive oil example, whilst it certainly could skew the data, would also make it harder for them to get their drug approved, because it was no more effective than the placebo - I happen to know that even if a drug is completely harmless, if it's no better than placebo it won't get approval for sale.

This article appears to me to be purely throwing every piece of mud available in the hopes that some of it will stick; rather than making an intelligent and cogent point. Sorry, I'm unimpressed."

"Having worked in the pharma industry, this article is complete bullshit.

For double and triple blind (the third blind comes from not even the pharma company knowing the blinding details until after the trial) placebo design is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. A placebo must match the drug in physical appearance, taste, texture, density, state (liquid/solid/gas), and anticipated side effects. Any material difference in any of these categories renders the trial completely and totally meaningless, because at a minimum it unblinds the doctors on the ground.

Pointing out a few random oversights out of the thousands of clinical trials that occur every year is not proof of evil on the part of pharma; it is a testament to the care that goes into their design. It represents a defect rate virtually unmatched in any other industry.
But sure, go ahead and advocate irresponsible alarmism over a non-issue, as if though drug trials aren't already expensive enough, retarding scientific progress and costing millions of lives from drugs that would have been otherwise developed."

I'm inclined to say it's a non-issue. Not to mention the great majority of drugs that are developed never make it to market, so if the industry is purposely trying to play the cards by altering the placebos, they're obviously not doing a very good job.

[j3nn]

You're joking aren't you. You rail against Government at every opportunity but now you say your complaint is that they aren't protecting individuals properly. Having no government will provide less protection

But that's exactly the point you and others like you are missing. You believe the government protects us and makes us safer, when it in fact often does the exact opposite by colluding with unnaturally large companies and protecting monopolies. My argument is not for the government to do a better job; my argument is that the government is an unnecessary evil and people could be safer and better off without its constraints, without its theft, without its enslavement. There is absolutely nothing that couldn't be privatized and made voluntary.