I am having a debate of sort about the placebo effect among other things.
I wrote:
My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the treatment.
He wrote:
This is wrong. It depends on the treatment and the illness. A placebo can only have an effect if it boosts the immune system or otherwise affects physical health through the mind.
Which of us is more correct? Thank you in advance for all replies. -- Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY, REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"
I am having a debate of sort about the placebo effect among other things.
I wrote:
My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the treatment.
He wrote:
This is wrong. It depends on the treatment and the illness. A placebo can only have an effect if it boosts the immune system or otherwise affects physical health through the mind. Which of us is more correct? Thank you in advance for all replies.
I am having a debate of sort about the placebo effect among other things.
I wrote:
My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the treatment.
Well, that may have been well-intentioned, but isn't it overstated? Patient has heart attack. Doc says, Ok this will make you better, and pinches the patient's nose. Do you really think the patient will get better?
bob
Quoted message said:
He wrote:
This is wrong. It depends on the treatment and the illness. A placebo can only have an effect if it boosts the immune system or otherwise affects physical health through the mind.
Which of us is more correct? Thank you in advance for all replies.
My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the treatment.
Well, that may have been well-intentioned, but isn't it overstated? Patient has heart attack. Doc says, Ok this will make you better, and pinches the patient's nose. Do you really think the patient will get better?
No, but it doesn't refute the statement. If pinching his nose has neither placebo nor actual effect, the statement is true (0 + 0 = 0). If pinching his nose has a small positive placebo effect, it's still true (1 + 0 = 1). Even if it has a negative effect, the statement is true again (-1 + 0 = -1).
My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the treatment.
Well, that may have been well-intentioned, but isn't it overstated? Patient has heart attack. Doc says, Ok this will make you better, and pinches the patient's nose. Do you really think the patient will get better?
No, but it doesn't refute the statement. If pinching his nose has neither placebo nor actual effect,
But that contradicts the OP's suggestion.
Quoted message said:
the statement is true (0 + 0 = 0). If pinching his nose has a small positive placebo effect, it's still true (1 + 0 = 1). Even if it has a negative effect, the statement is true again (-1 + 0 = -1).
As a general truism, I find no fault with it.
My first reaction to reading the original post was to suggest that the two views stated were not necessarily incompatible. But upon looking more closely, seemed that the OP was over-stating. In any case, main point is that their difference may well be semantic, and maybe the OP can address that.
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:05:24 GMT, Daniel Prince > >My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a >placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the >treatment. >
Well, that may have been well-intentioned, but isn't it overstated? Patient has heart attack. Doc says, Ok this will make you better, and pinches the patient's nose. Do you really think the patient will get better?
No, but it doesn't refute the statement. If pinching his nose has neither placebo nor actual effect,
But that contradicts the OP's suggestion.
Well... yes and no. It's a semantics argument.
Quoted message said:
My first reaction to reading the original post was to suggest that the two views stated were not necessarily incompatible. But upon looking more closely, seemed that the OP was over-stating. In any case, main point is that their difference may well be semantic, and maybe the OP can address that.
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:05:24 GMT, Daniel Prince > >My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a >placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the >treatment. >
Well, that may have been well-intentioned, but isn't it overstated? Patient has heart attack. Doc says, Ok this will make you better, and pinches the patient's nose. Do you really think the patient will get better?
No, but it doesn't refute the statement. If pinching his nose has neither placebo nor actual effect,
But that contradicts the OP's suggestion.
Quoted message said:
the statement is true (0 + 0 = 0). If pinching his nose has a small positive placebo effect, it's still true (1 + 0 = 1). Even if it has a negative effect, the statement is true again (-1 + 0 = -1).
As a general truism, I find no fault with it.
My first reaction to reading the original post was to suggest that the two views stated were not necessarily incompatible. But upon looking more closely, seemed that the OP was over-stating. In any case, main point is that their difference may well be semantic, and maybe the OP can address that.
The person I am debating stated that a certain chronic disease can be cured by the placebo effect. I said that his statement was untrue because almost everyone with the illness is treated with numerous drugs and other treatments and recovery is rare. He replied with the text I included in my original message and am repeating here: _________________________________________________________- __________ This is wrong. It depends on the treatment and the illness. A placebo can only have an effect if it boosts the immune system or otherwise affects physical health through the mind. __________________________________________________________- __________
Isn't it true that if an illness has a significant cure rate from placebo it will have the same cure rate from any treatment that the physician believes in and that if the patient is not cured by antibiotics, antidepressants etc. they are unlikely to be cured by a sugar pill? -- Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY, REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"
"Daniel Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The person I am debating stated that a certain chronic disease can be
cured by the placebo effect.
what's the disease?
Why would it matter what disease we are discussing? -- Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY, REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"
"Daniel Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
> The person I am debating stated that a certain chronic > disease can be cured by the placebo effect.
what's the disease?
Why would it matter what disease we are discussing?
It matters if his entire premise is true in the first place. He's making quite a tall claim unless he's stretching the meaning of "disease" and/or "cure." I would expect something that can be cured solely by placebo to be more of a psychological condition than true disease, so it obviously begs the question of what this disease is.
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:05:24 GMT, Daniel Prince >> >>My understanding is that ANY treatment will have a >>placebo effect in addition to the actual effect of the >>treatment. >> > > >Well, that may have been well-intentioned, but isn't it >overstated? Patient has heart attack. Doc says, Ok this >will make you better, and pinches the patient's nose. Do >you really think the patient will get better?
Quoted message said:
The person I am debating stated that a certain chronic disease can be cured by the placebo effect.
What disease?
The problem with the original discussion is that it was too vague. You have not responded to my comments about what you wrote. Now you say that there is a specific context. What is it? Maybe we can get to something meaningful, rather than vague generalities.
Quoted message said:
I said that his statement was untrue because almost everyone with the illness is treated with numerous drugs and other treatments and recovery is rare. He replied with the text I included in my original message and am repeating here: __________________________________________________________- _________ This is wrong. It depends on the treatment and the illness. A placebo can only have an effect if it boosts the immune system or otherwise affects physical health through the mind. __________________________________________________________- __________
Isn't it true that if an illness has a significant cure rate from placebo it will have the same cure rate from any treatment that the physician believes in and that if the patient is not cured by antibiotics, antidepressants etc. they are unlikely to be cured by a sugar pill?
That doesn't seem very logical. But it really would help to get beyond generalities. Placebos are somewhat mysterious.
"Daniel Prince" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... >> The person I am debating stated that a certain chronic >> disease can be > cured by the placebo effect.
what's the disease?
Why would it matter what disease we are discussing?
It matters if his entire premise is true in the first place. He's making quite a tall claim unless he's stretching the meaning of "disease" and/or "cure." I would expect something that can be cured solely by placebo to be more of a psychological condition than true disease, so it obviously begs the question of what this disease is.
The disease is Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. -- Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY, REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"
