Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reverse Placebo Effect
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 16 of 28 (601471)
01-20-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
01-20-2011 4:36 PM


i take about two and half times the normal injection of local anesthetic, and it generally wears off in about the time it take to kick in for normal people.
Well my old dentist screwed up one of my teeth and when i came back the pain was so bad that 2.5 doses had no effect on me not even a numbness of the face. After that i changed dentists and when the second one pulled one of my teeth he gave me 1 dose i dint feal my whole face for 2 hrs and for half an hr i felt like i was drunk. My best guesses are that my first dentist was somehow watering down the drug or something or that my second one had a different and better one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2011 4:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2011 7:53 PM frako has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 28 (601479)
01-20-2011 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by frako
01-20-2011 6:51 PM


perhaps.
my anecdotal non-evidence is only really based on what my dentist's preconception of a normal amount of lidocaine appears to be -- probably a good indicator of what works on most people. for all i know, he might well be diluting it or something, but that dilution seems to work just fine on other people. the placebo reaction might well have something to do with that.
interestingly, whatever it is could be hereditary. my father reports similar anecdotes.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by frako, posted 01-20-2011 6:51 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 01-21-2011 6:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 22 by glowby, posted 01-22-2011 2:02 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 28 (601532)
01-21-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
01-20-2011 7:53 PM


Advil works for me, too, as does Alleve (aka naproxen), and I have similar dentist stories.
But many things do seem to work on me as well as they do on others. Morphine works great for me as a pain killer, and I can't even count as far as 10 before the sodium thiopental kicks in. Much more recently I found that propofol works great as a substitute for sodium thiopental, and is actually much better as you wake up feeling alert and refreshed instead of groggy.
The frustrating thing about Tylenol is that the medical establishment is always recommending it. "If you feel any pain later, just take some Tylenol," they'll say. Interestingly, Advil is contraindicated under some circumstances (probably related to drug interaction) and can't just automatically be used as a replacement, so you have to ask what you can take instead.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2011 7:53 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 28 (601537)
01-21-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
01-20-2011 4:36 PM


arachnophilia writes:
caffeine does little or nothing to me -- except that i'm hopelessly addicted to it. i decided consciously a few years back to drop all soda from my diet, and drink only water from then on. a week a later, i discovered that i could no longer function because of the migraines. i had initially believed -- rather firmly, i might add -- that there would be no actual difference.
I read recently how caffeine works. It blocks a certain type of receptor of a certain cell type, and the result is to make us feel more alert. These cells gradually become habituated to caffeine by developing more receptors, nullifying caffeine's effect. The cells respond to increased caffeine intake by developing yet more receptors. Caffeine will only work by keeping intake moderate, perhaps a cup or two of coffee a day.
Of course, for people who never or rarely drink coffee then a cup of coffee must be a real jolt!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2011 4:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2011 4:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 28 (601585)
01-21-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
01-21-2011 7:44 AM


Percy writes:
Advil works for me, too, as does Alleve (aka naproxen), and I have similar dentist stories.
But many things do seem to work on me as well as they do on others. Morphine works great for me as a pain killer, and I can't even count as far as 10 before the sodium thiopental kicks in. Much more recently I found that propofol works great as a substitute for sodium thiopental, and is actually much better as you wake up feeling alert and refreshed instead of groggy.
can't say i've tried that much. i've only been put under once, and it worked quite effectively. not sure what they used.
The frustrating thing about Tylenol is that the medical establishment is always recommending it. "If you feel any pain later, just take some Tylenol," they'll say. Interestingly, Advil is contraindicated under some circumstances (probably related to drug interaction) and can't just automatically be used as a replacement, so you have to ask what you can take instead.
i've gotten advice to take ibuprofren/advil several times, but generally as an anti-inflamatory.
I read recently how caffeine works. It blocks a certain type of receptor of a certain cell type, and the result is to make us feel more alert. These cells gradually become habituated to caffeine by developing more receptors, nullifying caffeine's effect. The cells respond to increased caffeine intake by developing yet more receptors. Caffeine will only work by keeping intake moderate, perhaps a cup or two of coffee a day.
Of course, for people who never or rarely drink coffee then a cup of coffee must be a real jolt!
i do get a bit of the alertness, yes.
but i suspect the headaches are a blood-flow thing. caffeine metabolizes into a couple of things, and small percentage of that is a vaso-dilator.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 01-21-2011 7:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 21 of 28 (601609)
01-22-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Panda
01-20-2011 7:17 AM


Panda responds to me:
quote:
And this from Wiki
Oy. Wikipedia isn't a source.
At any rate, you seem to have missed your own source's point:
the authors later published a Cochrane review with similar conclusions
See? The same conclusions. From the review:
We studied the effect of placebo treatments by reviewing 202 trials comparing placebo treatment with no treatment covering 60 healthcare problems. In general, placebo treatments produced no major health benefits, although on average they had a modest effect on outcomes reported by patients, such as pain. However, the effect on pain varied from large to non-existent, even in well-conducted trials. Variations in the effect of placebo was partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted, the type of placebo used, and whether patients were informed that the trial involved placebo.
I certainly understand the need to do more study and some of the findings about how the brain works and how it can affect the body are fascinating, but the simple fact remains that comparing treatment-to-placebo and then declaring a placebo effect begs the question: It presumes that which is being claimed. Then there is the problem of the original claim: Beecher only included positive effects. That is, in his study of placebo, he only reported those who had improvement: Those who got worse were simply ignored.
Now, I understand the need to compare treatment to something that isn't treatment. How on earth do you know if the treatment actually does anything if you don't compare it to something that isn't the treatment? But that extends to placebo: How do you know the placebo is actually doing something if you don't compare it to something that isn't the placebo? The treatment isn't a good choice because we're hoping it will actually do something.
No, you have to compare it to letting the body do its own thing. So far, all the studies that actually had the three groups have not reported any clinical difference between taking a placebo and doing nothing. So if doing nothing is identical to taking a placebo, how is there any sort of effect?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Panda, posted 01-20-2011 7:17 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Panda, posted 01-22-2011 6:33 AM Rrhain has replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 22 of 28 (601610)
01-22-2011 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
01-20-2011 7:53 PM


My dentist has learned not to bother with normal doses of lidocaine anymore. He once shot me three times, with no effect. We had to reschedule.
Perhaps if he had told me it was some really high-grade Peruvian lidocaine that had made the ears and shoulders of some patients go numb, I might have placeboed my way through that root canal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2011 7:53 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 23 of 28 (601616)
01-22-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rrhain
01-22-2011 12:20 AM


Rrhain writes:
I certainly understand the need to do more study and some of the findings about how the brain works and how it can affect the body are fascinating, but the simple fact remains that comparing treatment-to-placebo and then declaring a placebo effect begs the question: It presumes that which is being claimed. Then there is the problem of the original claim: Beecher only included positive effects. That is, in his study of placebo, he only reported those who had improvement: Those who got worse were simply ignored.
I am glad that you agree with me that the certainty conveyed in your previous post is inappropriate.
Good.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2011 12:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2011 7:37 PM Panda has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 28 (601665)
01-22-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Panda
01-22-2011 6:33 AM


Panda responds to me:
quote:
I am glad that you agree with me that the certainty conveyed in your previous post is inappropriate.
Nice try, but no. My confidence is not reduced but is, in fact, increased. They performed a deeper study and found the same thing: There is no placebo effect.
It is now up to those who claim placebo to show their proof. Since the original report that started the entire concept of a "placebo effect" has been shown to be fraudulent, we need to do work to justify the claim (shades of the "vaccines cause autism" fraud). We don't get to assume that which we need to prove, especially since true investigation has shown opposite results. Since doing placebo trials is ethically challenged as it is, we should be sure that there's a reason to do it in the first place.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Panda, posted 01-22-2011 6:33 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Panda, posted 01-22-2011 8:52 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 25 of 28 (601669)
01-22-2011 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rrhain
01-22-2011 7:37 PM


Rrhain writes:
They performed a deeper study and found the same thing: There is no placebo effect.
Excellent.
So every scientist has abandoned all research into placebos and, in fact, the word placebo is no longer used.
To be honest, the odds of the mind having any effect on the body was pretty unbelievable.
I will await the deletion of the 'placebo' Wiki page.
quote:
This view was notably challenged when in 2001 a systematic review of clinical trials concluded that there was no evidence of clinically important effects,
except perhaps in the treatment of pain and continuous subjective outcomes.
Oh wait...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2011 7:37 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2011 1:04 AM Panda has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 26 of 28 (601683)
01-23-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Panda
01-22-2011 8:52 PM


Panda responds to me:
quote:
So every scientist has abandoned all research into placebos and, in fact, the word placebo is no longer used.
Ah, so you want to play dumb. OK.
quote:
To be honest, the odds of the mind having any effect on the body was pretty unbelievable.
The way the placebo effect is described? You betcha. Things like pain perception, that makes sense since pain is a mental perception and thus based in the brain. But causing cancer to go into remission? Please. Yeah, stress hormones have associations with immune responses, but in the question of full-blown disease, it would only be effective in marginal cases at best.
You can't think you're way out of a bacterial infection.
quote:
I will await the deletion of the 'placebo' Wiki page.
Because Wikipedia is such a respected source. PubMed references it all the time.
quote:
Oh wait...
OK...I'll wait. I'll wait for you to read my original post which pointed that fact out.
You did read my post before responding didn't you?
I'll wait.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Panda, posted 01-22-2011 8:52 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 01-23-2011 6:35 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 27 of 28 (601689)
01-23-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rrhain
01-23-2011 1:04 AM


When in Rome...
Rrhain writes:
Things like pain perception, that makes sense since pain is a mental perception and thus based in the brain.
No! No!
The placebo effect CANNOT work!
It has been proven to not exist!!!
Rrhain writes:
OK...I'll wait. I'll wait for you to read my original post which pointed that fact out.
I think your confirmation bias is too far gone, else you would understand that even your own quotes undermine your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2011 1:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 01-24-2011 1:51 AM Panda has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 28 of 28 (601775)
01-24-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Panda
01-23-2011 6:35 AM


Panda responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Things like pain perception, that makes sense since pain is a mental perception and thus based in the brain.
No! No!
The placebo effect CANNOT work!
It has been proven to not exist!!!
I see you've decided to continue to play dumb.
At least would you admit that you didn't read my post before responding? You will notice, for example, that I pointed out that the only clinical effect noted regarding placebo was a slight decrease in response to pain. And if you had read the article I had referenced, it gives an explanation (albeit a bit flippant): When you attend to someone in pain, they can understandably feel less pain. It isn't that any treatment is doing it but rather the psychological response.
That is quite different from placebo effects on disease. You can't think your way out of cancer.
quote:
I think your confirmation bias is too far gone, else you would understand that even your own quotes undermine your argument.
Nice try, but that's my argument to you.
Your own source contradicted your claim. You do understand what the following sentence means, yes:
the authors later published a Cochrane review with similar conclusions
"Similar conclusions." That is, people thought there might have been a problem so they performed a more in-depth meta-analysis of the studies that existed and came to the same conclusion.
How is that "confirmation bias"? How does one interpret the phrase, "similar conclusions" to mean "contradictory results"?
Be specific.
Do you have any evidence of any studies that compared the three groups required to validate placebo--treatment, placebo, and observation--and came to a different conclusion?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 01-23-2011 6:35 AM Panda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024