7 yr old and forced Radiotherapy
Discussion
youngsyr said:
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600...
Anyone know of any update on this research?
Some discussion here:Anyone know of any update on this research?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=179303
Looks a bit cold-fusion-ish in terms of the inability of anyone to repeat her results.
otolith said:
youngsyr said:
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600...
Anyone know of any update on this research?
Some discussion here:Anyone know of any update on this research?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=179303
Looks a bit cold-fusion-ish in terms of the inability of anyone to repeat her results.
CommanderJameson said:
otolith said:
youngsyr said:
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600...
Anyone know of any update on this research?
Some discussion here:Anyone know of any update on this research?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=179303
Looks a bit cold-fusion-ish in terms of the inability of anyone to repeat her results.
Derek Smith said:
CommanderJameson said:
Derek Smith said:
There seems to be some doubt as to whether there is indeed a placebo effect.
No, there doesn't. Go and read Bad Science (again, if you've read it once).
The Chicago Tribune said:
"That article was a travesty," said neurobiologist Howard Fields of the University of California at San Francisco, who in the 1970s demonstrated that placebos appear to relieve pain by inducing the body to release opiates.
A new study co-authored by neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy bolsters this notion. Benedetti found that patients who were informed they were receiving an intravenous analgesic experienced more pain relief than those who received it automatically via an infusion machine.
The painkiller's action was enhanced by the knowledge that it was being given, a clear placebo effect. In a little-publicized portion of their paper, even Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche concede that placebos can relieve pain.
Fields is especially irate that Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche lumped together disparate trials, some of which found a placebo effect, some of which did not. In effect, the trials canceled each other out.
A new study co-authored by neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy bolsters this notion. Benedetti found that patients who were informed they were receiving an intravenous analgesic experienced more pain relief than those who received it automatically via an infusion machine.
The painkiller's action was enhanced by the knowledge that it was being given, a clear placebo effect. In a little-publicized portion of their paper, even Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche concede that placebos can relieve pain.
Fields is especially irate that Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche lumped together disparate trials, some of which found a placebo effect, some of which did not. In effect, the trials canceled each other out.
CommanderJameson said:
Derek Smith said:
CommanderJameson said:
Derek Smith said:
There seems to be some doubt as to whether there is indeed a placebo effect.
No, there doesn't. Go and read Bad Science (again, if you've read it once).
The Chicago Tribune said:
"That article was a travesty," said neurobiologist Howard Fields of the University of California at San Francisco, who in the 1970s demonstrated that placebos appear to relieve pain by inducing the body to release opiates.
A new study co-authored by neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy bolsters this notion. Benedetti found that patients who were informed they were receiving an intravenous analgesic experienced more pain relief than those who received it automatically via an infusion machine.
The painkiller's action was enhanced by the knowledge that it was being given, a clear placebo effect. In a little-publicized portion of their paper, even Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche concede that placebos can relieve pain.
Fields is especially irate that Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche lumped together disparate trials, some of which found a placebo effect, some of which did not. In effect, the trials canceled each other out.
A new study co-authored by neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy bolsters this notion. Benedetti found that patients who were informed they were receiving an intravenous analgesic experienced more pain relief than those who received it automatically via an infusion machine.
The painkiller's action was enhanced by the knowledge that it was being given, a clear placebo effect. In a little-publicized portion of their paper, even Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche concede that placebos can relieve pain.
Fields is especially irate that Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche lumped together disparate trials, some of which found a placebo effect, some of which did not. In effect, the trials canceled each other out.
Benedetti is hardly without his critics.
swerni said:
Is it possible to think yourself ill?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...See Nigel's post, fourth or fith one down.
Derek Smith said:
So you prefer one scientist's opinion over that of another?
Benedetti is hardly without his critics.
Whatever. You've skipped over the criticism of the methodology.Benedetti is hardly without his critics.
Bottom line: there's a placebo effect, it works, it's been shown to work in animals as well as humans (now that is quite the peculiar thing). You've cherry-picked one eleven-year-old study that's open to serious methodological criticism and held it up as proof that there's no such thing as the placebo effect and everyone else has just had the wrong end of the stick all these years.
just to clarify a couple of points, placebos aren't used in drug trials, that would be unethical. New drugs are compared against the current best treatment to see if the response is better or at least equal with less adverse affects. Giving sick people sugar pills is completely unethical.
Secondly, what condition are you going to use as the condition to test placebo on? A mild feeling of being a bit under the weather, sorta feeling kinda depressed, that niggling ache that the doctors can't diagnose?
Secondly, what condition are you going to use as the condition to test placebo on? A mild feeling of being a bit under the weather, sorta feeling kinda depressed, that niggling ache that the doctors can't diagnose?
TheSnitch said:
Pesty said:
Are not final medical trials placebo tests anyway?
After initial trials they give one lot of actual sufferers with the condition the drug and another lot pretend they have.
That way they text the effectiveness of the drug against the placebo effect. If it gets better results than the control group the drug works and is better than placebo.
Yes, in effect.After initial trials they give one lot of actual sufferers with the condition the drug and another lot pretend they have.
That way they text the effectiveness of the drug against the placebo effect. If it gets better results than the control group the drug works and is better than placebo.
Trials are usually referred to as Phase 1,2,3 or 4. Phase 4 studies are often conducted once the drug is licenced and on the market, when data can be collected about adverse reactions on a greater number of patients. Phase 3 trials will often compare the drug against placebo in patients with the condition it is intended to treat.
thinfourth2 said:
So do you believe it is impossible for someone to think themselves "better"
I firmly believe it is possible in some case for the brain to have an influence on the body
In some cases? how about brain tumors which is the case we are talking about. In fact all cancer. What about heart desease?I firmly believe it is possible in some case for the brain to have an influence on the body
I like the word 'belive' you used. Lets face it thats all it is. No different for belief in fairies unless you have proof.
thinfourth2 said:
But if some phony treatment helps them feel better how is it phony?
Because it is phony. I could hold up a bank with a phony gun. If they hand over the money, it's still a phony gun. The fact that it obtained a result doesn't make it a real gun.A witch doctor may be able to obtain a reaction from a patient, it doesn't make him a real doctor. He's still a fraud.
Derek Smith said:
TheSnitch said:
I am suggesting that you are unclear about what a placebo is and what we mean when we talk about the placebo effect.
I also think you have drawn conclusions from clinical papers which you have read without fully understanding them.
So - in brief summary - a placebo contains no active ingredient and is used in studies which measure the efficacy of a treatment. It allows us to compare the response of the patients taking the drug against those of the patients taking the placebo because in some conditions some patients may show some improvement in observed or reported criteria despite the fact that they are not receiving an active drug. This may be due to a number of factors, including a possible reduction in stress which exacerbates many conditions. It may also be due to the patient expecting to feel better, therefore may be a matter of perception.
So is it ethical to treat the patient with placebo alone? Well, not if you want them to trust you. Within the ethical framework of an approved study is one thing, but physicians handing out placebos to patients in lieu of an active treatment - what does that say? ''I don't believe you are ill/I am not taking your illness seriously/you are swinging the lead''?
So the placebo effect in different conditions might be an interesting aspect to study but more from a point of view of studying the role of the brain in symptom and severity perception in my personal opinion.
The definition of placebo is clear to me. I am not talking about the placebo effect. It is the effects of placebos, something quite different, which I am confused by. I've read a number of papers and there is no consensus, not that that means it would be right of course. I also think you have drawn conclusions from clinical papers which you have read without fully understanding them.
So - in brief summary - a placebo contains no active ingredient and is used in studies which measure the efficacy of a treatment. It allows us to compare the response of the patients taking the drug against those of the patients taking the placebo because in some conditions some patients may show some improvement in observed or reported criteria despite the fact that they are not receiving an active drug. This may be due to a number of factors, including a possible reduction in stress which exacerbates many conditions. It may also be due to the patient expecting to feel better, therefore may be a matter of perception.
So is it ethical to treat the patient with placebo alone? Well, not if you want them to trust you. Within the ethical framework of an approved study is one thing, but physicians handing out placebos to patients in lieu of an active treatment - what does that say? ''I don't believe you are ill/I am not taking your illness seriously/you are swinging the lead''?
So the placebo effect in different conditions might be an interesting aspect to study but more from a point of view of studying the role of the brain in symptom and severity perception in my personal opinion.
Doctors and scientists glibly talked of endorphins but now we find that in tests placebos, at least the inactive pill used in the tests, did not effect a release of endorphins. One wonders how they used a double blind in that one.
So how do placebos work? If indeed they do work. Remember that there is no proof that they do. That is my problem. If they do work then how, why and how can we harness the effect. Just giving out sugar pills is not harnessing, it is just random use in hope.
There seems to be some doubt as to whether there is indeed a placebo effect.
I'm used to reading into a subject and then finding out the conclusions of scientists. But with placebos it seems that few have taken the matter seriously. It is rather like licking tree bark without wondering why inflammation is reduced.
If what is generally believed about the effects of placebos is right then it promises to revolutionise the pharma industry. The word first appeared in connection with medicine in 1785 but we know little more about it. How come we are so ignorant about it today?
An earlier bit of research, by Linde and Jones, reckoned that it was wrong to suggest that the effects of homeopathy are down to the placebo effect. This did not, as suggested by the homeopaths, prove that they were right. More likely is that the results from the placebo were not quite as straightforward as suspected.
If we understood what placebos did, if they do anything at all, we might be able to report the death of the myth of homeopathy. More importantly, it might give birth to something really exciting.
My belief has been that placebos have no direct effect. It is all in the administration. This, it would appear, is false. I am now without any idea; no guesses, no insight, not even an expectation that they have any effect at all. I find this uncomfortable.
All my interest stemmed from what I thought was an impossibility: a chap ODeed on a placebo. Up until then I knew everything about them.
I think what you are actually asking is ''What causes the placebo effect?'' which to be honest has been covered several times already
Derek said:
''There seems to be some doubt as to whether there is indeed a placebo effect''
No, there isn'tDerek said:
''So how do placebos work?''
The placebo doesn't do anything. It's inactive. The placebo effect is a patient-generated change.Derek said:
''I'm used to reading into a subject and then finding out the conclusions of scientists. But with placebos it seems that few have taken the matter seriously. It is rather like licking tree bark without wondering why inflammation is reduced.''
No - the tree bark contains an active ingredient. It is therefore not a placebo. We adjust for the placebo effect by designing studies which exclude it as a confounding factor. How and why it happens may be useful to know and may provide insight into the disease process and suggest supportive therapies but you cannot 'develop' placebos into a treatment, as you appear to be suggesting. They are, by definition, lacking in any active ingredient.
Derek said:
''If what is generally believed about the effects of placebos is right then it promises to revolutionise the pharma industry. The word first appeared in connection with medicine in 1785 but we know little more about it. How come we are so ignorant about it today?''
No, it doesn't.We are not ignorant about it - the placebo effect is well observed
Derek said:
''If we understood what placebos did, if they do anything at all, we might be able to report the death of the myth of homeopathy. More importantly, it might give birth to something really exciting.''
We already do. Homeopathy has long been regarded as cobblers. Placebos will not give birth to anything ''really exciting''Derek said:
My belief has been that placebos have no direct effect. It is all in the administration. This, it would appear, is false. I am now without any idea; no guesses, no insight, not even an expectation that they have any effect at all. I find this uncomfortable.
All my interest stemmed from what I thought was an impossibility: a chap ODeed on a placebo. Up until then I knew everything about them.
Source please, Derek. Why do you find this uncomfortable? All my interest stemmed from what I thought was an impossibility: a chap ODeed on a placebo. Up until then I knew everything about them.
swerni said:
thinfourth2 said:
So do you believe it is impossible for someone to think themselves "better"
I firmly believe it is possible in some case for the brain to have an influence on the body
Is it possible to think yourself ill?I firmly believe it is possible in some case for the brain to have an influence on the body
CommanderJameson said:
Derek Smith said:
So you prefer one scientist's opinion over that of another?
Benedetti is hardly without his critics.
Whatever. You've skipped over the criticism of the methodology.Benedetti is hardly without his critics.
Bottom line: there's a placebo effect, it works, it's been shown to work in animals as well as humans (now that is quite the peculiar thing). You've cherry-picked one eleven-year-old study that's open to serious methodological criticism and held it up as proof that there's no such thing as the placebo effect and everyone else has just had the wrong end of the stick all these years.
B/ Everyone else? There has been limited study of the effects of placebos. If 'everyone' beleives in one particular suggestion about them then I would suggest it is quite likely to be wrong. For instance, we all 'knew' that endorphins caused the placebo effect with regards pain.
NWTony said:
just to clarify a couple of points, placebos aren't used in drug trials, that would be unethical. New drugs are compared against the current best treatment to see if the response is better or at least equal with less adverse affects. Giving sick people sugar pills is completely unethical.
Secondly, what condition are you going to use as the condition to test placebo on? A mild feeling of being a bit under the weather, sorta feeling kinda depressed, that niggling ache that the doctors can't diagnose?
Sorry, that's not actually trueSecondly, what condition are you going to use as the condition to test placebo on? A mild feeling of being a bit under the weather, sorta feeling kinda depressed, that niggling ache that the doctors can't diagnose?
They are used in drug trials. Frequently. They are used in situations where there is no pre-existing treatment available for the condition in question, for example. Where there is an existing treatment, it is certainly very unlikely to get ethical approval to conduct placebo controlled trials, but this is not the same in every country or in every circumstance
Derek Smith said:
A/ I am not saying, nor suggesting, that there is no such thing as the placebo effect. It must exist because it has a name. There is some doubt about the effects of placebos.
B/ Everyone else? There has been limited study of the effects of placebos. If 'everyone' beleives in one particular suggestion about them then I would suggest it is quite likely to be wrong. For instance, we all 'knew' that endorphins caused the placebo effect with regards pain.
But Derek, in your previous post you said:B/ Everyone else? There has been limited study of the effects of placebos. If 'everyone' beleives in one particular suggestion about them then I would suggest it is quite likely to be wrong. For instance, we all 'knew' that endorphins caused the placebo effect with regards pain.
Derek said:
My belief has been that placebos have no direct effect. It is all in the administration. This, it would appear, is false. I am now without any idea; no guesses, no insight, not even an expectation that they have any effect at all. I find this uncomfortable.
Can you see that this is very confusing?I'm fully aware that one study does not make a summer. However, the study stands. It is a mata-analysis, which I'm not a whole hearted believer in, but I'm willing to accept that there is doubt. A retort that there is no doubt is hardly likely to convince me otherwise.
You miss the point about licking trees entirely. I was suggesting that just accepting the placebo effect is the same. Why do placebos have an effect is the question.
Prediction is the essence of science. Just suggesting that about 20% of a group will feel better is not really on.
You say we cannot develop placebos into a treatment as they are inactive. Well dah! I am not stupid. But if the effect of a placebo is to reduce pain, then why. Once we know then we might well be able to harness the patient generated response and increase the 20% (whatever).
You suggest the effects of a placebo are well observed. OK, why are they not investigated then. 1785 remember.
I remember the Lancet suggesting that homeopathy was dead. Scientists who were sceptics criticised the report, sggesting that the conclusion was wrong scientifically. I am not aware of anything that has surfaced since. I do not believe in homeopathy.
You ask why I am uncomforable with a phenomenon that has been known about for 250 years yet no one has been able to harness its effects?
My point, and one I thought was obvious, is that there is limited investigation into placebos. No one can say what causes the results. There are guesses of course but that is hardly scientific. So you tell me how we harness the effects of placebos in everyday medicine. Giving them out like sweets in not what I mean.
You say that placebos will not give birth to anything realy exciting. If there is no investigation then I agree. We'll go on telling ourselves that we know all there is to know about it and that will be that.
When I was a kid hypnotism was regarded as a showman's trick. There was even a law against it. Everyone knew that it was rubbish.
The history of science is the history of scientists who knew things until they discovered that they didn't.
My reading on the matter suggests that, like everyone else, I cannot predict what effects a placebo will have on a person apart from a very broad brush that is all but useless.
See my previous post for the source on a chap who suffered from an overdose of placebo.
You miss the point about licking trees entirely. I was suggesting that just accepting the placebo effect is the same. Why do placebos have an effect is the question.
Prediction is the essence of science. Just suggesting that about 20% of a group will feel better is not really on.
You say we cannot develop placebos into a treatment as they are inactive. Well dah! I am not stupid. But if the effect of a placebo is to reduce pain, then why. Once we know then we might well be able to harness the patient generated response and increase the 20% (whatever).
You suggest the effects of a placebo are well observed. OK, why are they not investigated then. 1785 remember.
I remember the Lancet suggesting that homeopathy was dead. Scientists who were sceptics criticised the report, sggesting that the conclusion was wrong scientifically. I am not aware of anything that has surfaced since. I do not believe in homeopathy.
You ask why I am uncomforable with a phenomenon that has been known about for 250 years yet no one has been able to harness its effects?
My point, and one I thought was obvious, is that there is limited investigation into placebos. No one can say what causes the results. There are guesses of course but that is hardly scientific. So you tell me how we harness the effects of placebos in everyday medicine. Giving them out like sweets in not what I mean.
You say that placebos will not give birth to anything realy exciting. If there is no investigation then I agree. We'll go on telling ourselves that we know all there is to know about it and that will be that.
When I was a kid hypnotism was regarded as a showman's trick. There was even a law against it. Everyone knew that it was rubbish.
The history of science is the history of scientists who knew things until they discovered that they didn't.
My reading on the matter suggests that, like everyone else, I cannot predict what effects a placebo will have on a person apart from a very broad brush that is all but useless.
See my previous post for the source on a chap who suffered from an overdose of placebo.
Derek Smith said:
A/ I am not saying, nor suggesting, that there is no such thing as the placebo effect. It must exist because it has a name. There is some doubt about the effects of placebos.
B/ Everyone else? There has been limited study of the effects of placebos. If 'everyone' beleives in one particular suggestion about them then I would suggest it is quite likely to be wrong. For instance, we all 'knew' that endorphins caused the placebo effect with regards pain.
By "effects of placebo" do you mean how the placebo effect works i.e. the mechanisms?B/ Everyone else? There has been limited study of the effects of placebos. If 'everyone' beleives in one particular suggestion about them then I would suggest it is quite likely to be wrong. For instance, we all 'knew' that endorphins caused the placebo effect with regards pain.
Derek Smith said:
I'm fully aware that one study does not make a summer. However, the study stands. It is a mata-analysis, which I'm not a whole hearted believer in, but I'm willing to accept that there is doubt. A retort that there is no doubt is hardly likely to convince me otherwise.
You miss the point about licking trees entirely. I was suggesting that just accepting the placebo effect is the same. Why do placebos have an effect is the question.
Prediction is the essence of science. Just suggesting that about 20% of a group will feel better is not really on.
You say we cannot develop placebos into a treatment as they are inactive. Well dah! I am not stupid. But if the effect of a placebo is to reduce pain, then why. Once we know then we might well be able to harness the patient generated response and increase the 20% (whatever).
You suggest the effects of a placebo are well observed. OK, why are they not investigated then. 1785 remember.
I remember the Lancet suggesting that homeopathy was dead. Scientists who were sceptics criticised the report, sggesting that the conclusion was wrong scientifically. I am not aware of anything that has surfaced since. I do not believe in homeopathy.
You ask why I am uncomforable with a phenomenon that has been known about for 250 years yet no one has been able to harness its effects?
My point, and one I thought was obvious, is that there is limited investigation into placebos. No one can say what causes the results. There are guesses of course but that is hardly scientific. So you tell me how we harness the effects of placebos in everyday medicine. Giving them out like sweets in not what I mean.
You say that placebos will not give birth to anything realy exciting. If there is no investigation then I agree. We'll go on telling ourselves that we know all there is to know about it and that will be that.
When I was a kid hypnotism was regarded as a showman's trick. There was even a law against it. Everyone knew that it was rubbish.
The history of science is the history of scientists who knew things until they discovered that they didn't.
My reading on the matter suggests that, like everyone else, I cannot predict what effects a placebo will have on a person apart from a very broad brush that is all but useless.
See my previous post for the source on a chap who suffered from an overdose of placebo.
Derek, I thought you quoted from a paper the other day that showed there was no significant clinical benefit to be derived from placebo? We need to account for the placebo effect when measuring the efficacy of a treatment, but in terms of any evidence of a sustained clinical benefit, as far as I am aware, there isn't any, although I'll do some literature searches on the subjectYou miss the point about licking trees entirely. I was suggesting that just accepting the placebo effect is the same. Why do placebos have an effect is the question.
Prediction is the essence of science. Just suggesting that about 20% of a group will feel better is not really on.
You say we cannot develop placebos into a treatment as they are inactive. Well dah! I am not stupid. But if the effect of a placebo is to reduce pain, then why. Once we know then we might well be able to harness the patient generated response and increase the 20% (whatever).
You suggest the effects of a placebo are well observed. OK, why are they not investigated then. 1785 remember.
I remember the Lancet suggesting that homeopathy was dead. Scientists who were sceptics criticised the report, sggesting that the conclusion was wrong scientifically. I am not aware of anything that has surfaced since. I do not believe in homeopathy.
You ask why I am uncomforable with a phenomenon that has been known about for 250 years yet no one has been able to harness its effects?
My point, and one I thought was obvious, is that there is limited investigation into placebos. No one can say what causes the results. There are guesses of course but that is hardly scientific. So you tell me how we harness the effects of placebos in everyday medicine. Giving them out like sweets in not what I mean.
You say that placebos will not give birth to anything realy exciting. If there is no investigation then I agree. We'll go on telling ourselves that we know all there is to know about it and that will be that.
When I was a kid hypnotism was regarded as a showman's trick. There was even a law against it. Everyone knew that it was rubbish.
The history of science is the history of scientists who knew things until they discovered that they didn't.
My reading on the matter suggests that, like everyone else, I cannot predict what effects a placebo will have on a person apart from a very broad brush that is all but useless.
See my previous post for the source on a chap who suffered from an overdose of placebo.
Derek Smith said:
All my interest stemmed from what I thought was an impossibility: a chap ODeed on a placebo. Up until then I knew everything about them.
What do you mean "he overdosed on placebos"? Did he take so many that he was physically ill, like I might be if I ate 50 tubes of Smarties. Anyone can be ill having too much of anything. Or do you mean he had a physical reaction to a placebo. In which case it's standard placebo effect. If I wanted to end it all and took an aspirin that I genuinely believed to be a cyanide pill, it's possible that that the certainty in my mind that I was about to die might bring on heart failure or whatever. I don't see why that isn't possible. Or if I took an aspirin that I thought was LSD, I may well go on a trip, which is a state of mind. What exactly do you mean by overdosed in this context?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff