0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It does appear to be the case that placebo's can have some psychological effect, to what extent that might corrupt medical trials would be fascinating to discover.
When it comes to the health industry, I tend to agree "to some extent" with this guy Mike Adams views (on this issue)
Fact: Placebos are usually provided by the very same company funding the clinical trial! Do you detect any room for fraud in this equation?
QuoteWhen it comes to the health industry, I tend to agree "to some extent" with this guy Mike Adams views (on this issue)To what extent?
your first link discussed the ethics of non-double-blinded treatments
well its probably basically true, if you think about it theres far too many variables in any health experiment to say any drug is definitely good for you,
also drugs cant cure chronic conditions, only deal with symptoms
All that time not dealing with the cause is damaging too.
Does it make any odds if they chose lactose or chalk
Are we not missing the obvious point, that a lactose intolerant patient would not have been included in a drug trial where lactose was included in the placebo or pill? roll eyes People undertaking drug trials have their history meticulously recorded, it would be uncommon for a lactose intolerance not to have been noted.
unless the selection of test participants asked about lactose intolerance in the screening questions before starting the study. Which I would expect in fact that it would..
Also the amount of lactose in pills, placebo or otherwise is only enough to effect severely lactose intolerant people, those people know about their intolerance and so does their GP, their medication is prescribed accordingly.
Quotewell its probably basically true, if you think about it theres far too many variables in any health experiment to say any drug is definitely good for you, Uh? For some drugs, this is probably true. But any drug? Nonsense. I don't think there is any question, at all, (at least not in the mind of anyone who both (a) is sane and (b) has thought for 2 minutes) for example, that antibiotics are good for people with bacterial meningitis. If you're suffering from a disease which is going to kill you in the next 24 hours and you're given a drug that stops you dying, even if that drug increases by 50 % your odds of developing cancer in the next 20 years (not that I know of any antibiotic to which this applies, I'm using an invented example to clarify my point), you're still coming out ahead. The same applies to chemotheraputics for cancer treatment. Individuals and their doctors have to weigh up the known risks and benefits.
Its more embarrassing that GPs have no clue how to deal with back pain.....
Its more embarrassing that GPs have no clue how to deal with back pain and RSI.