It is well known that the placebo effect can make people FEEL better but can it actually cure them?
I can see how it might cure a psychosomatic condition but what about a physical systemic disease? Anyone know of any cases where it has cured anything apart from psychological conditions?
As I understand it the placebo effect can reduce swelling/inflamation. I'd look for a citation but you can operate Pub Med/Google schoolar as well as I can.Originally Posted by Mulder
In some cases I might imagine swelling and inflamation may compound problems and delay recovery. As such the placebo effect could have real positive effects.
I recall reading somewhere (sorry, can't place the source) that the placebo effect is only temporary. Once it wears off, you're back where you were.
Well of course for self limiting conditions it's more where you would have been anyway (perhaps all better) rather than where you were.
Having said that the placebo effect could potentially have long lasting knock on effects not least if it affects the patients actions during the time the placebo effect is active.
Lets say the only remedy science can offer is a bit of fresh air and exercise, but nonetheless there good clinical evidence that this is an effective treatment. Now lets say that two groups are treated one by a cheerful positive doctor who takes pains to convince patients they should expect imediate effects and one by a down at heel practictioner who appologises for not being able to offer anything better and is rather pesamistic about it's effects. In other words in one group the treatment is coupled with a strong placebo effect and in another group only a weak placebo effect.
It would hardly be suprising that in the days that immediatly followed this advice the group with the benfit of the strong placebo effect will feel better than the other group. Not only that but you'd expect this feelign of wellbeing to carry over not only to their comitment to the exercise regime but their range of movement and activity in day to day life.
True enough - the body recovers from most ailments if left to its own devices. I suppose that if a placebo makes sufferers feel better while this process is going on, then it's all to the good.
That isn't quite what I would describe as a typical placebo effect. After all, anybody lacking in fresh air and exercise who is persuaded (enthusiastically or otherwise) to take some will probably feel better as a result, because there is genuine benefit from it. This is different from the situation in which someone feels better despite being given a "treatment" which is of no real benefit at all.Having said that the placebo effect could potentially have long lasting knock on effects not least if it affects the patients actions during the time the placebo effect is active.
Lets say the only remedy science can offer is a bit of fresh air and exercise, but nonetheless there good clinical evidence that this is an effective treatment. Now lets say that two groups are treated one by a cheerful positive doctor who takes pains to convince patients they should expect imediate effects and one by a down at heel practictioner who appologises for not being able to offer anything better and is rather pesamistic about it's effects. In other words in one group the treatment is coupled with a strong placebo effect and in another group only a weak placebo effect.
It would hardly be suprising that in the days that immediatly followed this advice the group with the benfit of the strong placebo effect will feel better than the other group. Not only that but you'd expect this feelign of wellbeing to carry over not only to their comitment to the exercise regime but their range of movement and activity in day to day life.
Examples that spring to mind include the orginal sham operation for intractible coronary disease. One group had their chest split and the mammary artery buried in the heart, the second just had a scar. The exercise performance increased by the samer amount in both, with 40% relieved of their angina. In severe heart failure trials, 60% have substantial improvement with placebo for up to 18 months (but die at the same rate). More recently in patients with severe migraine, sham procedures (to close patent foramen ovale) improved the frequency and severity of migraines as the 'real' procedure.
While one can claim that any of these conditions have a 'psychsomatic' component these individuals all had clear pathology, and improved wellbeing and functional capacity after placebo therapy.
The other way of looking at this is the Indian Atheist Group, who learn to control their reaction to tissue penetration. Thus can put hooks through their skin and suspend themselves from these hooks, or place metal spikes through their cheeks, to demonstrate that the brains reaction to stimuli is a pivotal component of the bodies reaction.
The issue of mental control over physical symptons is an interesting one. Certainly people can banish pain (there was a woman on TV just the other week who had surgery without anaesthetic - she hypnotised herself). Conversely, I read not long ago that having a positive, "fighting" attitude to combating potentially lethal ailments has no effect at all on the death rate, contrary to popular belief.
https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/21/1594
I heard an instructive anecdote. The guy had tinnitus for several weeks, and went to a specialist. the doctor did some tests and suggested that the guy wait a little longer to see if it would resolve itself. The guy asked what could be causing it, the doctor nonchalantly suggested a brain tumor.Conclusions We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.
The guy was rattled by that suggestion; but he went home. On the trip home, he realized that the noise was gone and, years later, he said it had never recurred. I guess you could say he was cured; but with no treatment of any sort.
It is common for such "operations" to be faked, ala psychic surgery. Also, some demonstrations use people who are so drugged that they cannot feel, or complain, much.
The BBC alright, lets rewrite all textbooks. After all who could fool a journalist?
Not saying it can't be done, but your evidence base is thin
I am not impressed. There have been news reports of psychic surgeons, too. You can read about it in "Flim Flam" (Prometheus, 1982) by James Randi. You can also see a humorous, staged example in his video documentary "The Secrets of the Psychics" (Nova, WBGH, 1993). The video is inexpensive, available through http://www.randi.org/ Also see "Pain" by Patrick Wall (Columbia U. Press, 2000) in which he discusses the situation with respect to acupuncture and hypnosis.
Certainly, there are people with a high threshold for pain. Certainly, if one combines that with the ability to become famous and make a lot of money, you could grit your teeth and bear it for a while.
Reporters are not known for letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
OK, thanks.
I'm not convinced the Placebo Effect even exists in any physiological sense, and I don't see any biological plausibility in the hypothesis that actively doing nothing is somehow better than passively doing nothing.
Measured against an objective standard, the effect consistently fails to manifest. It is only when measured against some subjective criterion - such as pain relief - that placebos are seen to have an effect. Which suggests that placebo action is perceptual not biological.
You perceive less pain because you think you perceive less pain. But the placebo hasn't, and couldn't, alter the rate at which your pain receptors fire. The best it can do is let you persuade yourself to ignore them.
Which takes us back to self-hypnosis
I was amused by an article in New Scientist a few months back which said that in one clinical trial, those on the placebo reported better results than those on the medicine being tested.
It makes one wonder how much of the perceived benefit from medicines is real and how much psychological. Particularly since recent research has shown that there is a big genetic component in how people respond to certain medicines; they work well with some people, not at all with others.
And other research has shown that patients kept in light, airy and pleasantly-decorated wards do better than those in less attractive environments.
How people are treated also seems to make a difference. I suspect that a lot of the benefit reported by people using alterative therapies (the more established ones rather than the obvious scams) comes from the fact that they often involve a long consultation with a sympathetic practioner rather than the production-line speed of passing through a doctor's surgery.
All of which tends to indicate that mental states can make a difference, however they are induced. Obviously it's not likely to help with serious physical ailments, but a lot of reported ailments these days have no measurable symptoms, just what the patients report.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks