Wait, if it’s double-blind, wouldn’t the scientists be unaware of whether he got a placebo or the real drug? Although I suppose this could be after the study has concluded. I would bet that in real studies they record the side effects reported before checking to see if it was the placebo or not!
This is basically like the many tests done on gluten sensitivity, where the people who claimed to have it and thought they were given bread claimed the usual symptoms, when they weren’t given anything of the sort. (And vice versa when they were given something they thought had no gluten, but did, and had no ill effects afterwards).
What’s really crazy is that sometimes the placebo can still bring people relief even after knowing that it’s a placebo
I recommend that everyone swallow a tictac placebo every day for exactly this reason. It cures everything.
Yeah. Though you ethically can’t try to use placebo as a medical treatment, because it’s inconsistent in whether it does anything and is essentially trying to not treat the patient at all with known methods of treatment.
And the larger the pill, the better the placebo effect. That’s why we now have testicle sized pills.
I wish that worked for me. I’d love to have someone give me a BS miracle drug sugar pill and actually be able to believe them. Even subconsciously. But subconsciously, I automatically disbelieve miracle claims (and even most efficacy claims) until looking at the clinical trial data.
Years of chronic pain and gobs of different meds to control it, most entirely ineffective but with side effects, does things to a person already inclined toward doubt. I’m also prone to nocibo responses, like the guy in the comic, but I think it’s sensations that are always there, I’m just being asked not to ignore the state of my body like I usually do, so I actually notice them.
Sure, but that’s just the placebo effect? I thought the double-blind process referred to something else in particular (hence the “double” part of the blind):
A double-blind study blinds both the subjects as well as the researchers to the treatment allocation [1]
In any case, I was mostly just curious, don’t intend to nit-pick the title :)
Source?
This is all I could find on the subject:
nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), has resurfaced in the literature, fueling a debate on the appropriateness of the GFD for people without celiac disease. Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583468/
And:
NCGS is included in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.[3][4] The definition and diagnostic criteria of non-celiac gluten sensitivity were debated and established by three consensus conferences.[4][14][15][16][17] However, as of 2019, there remained much debate in the scientific community as to whether NCGS was a distinct clinical disorder.[18]
So there’s definitely debate in the community about it, I would love to see some of these many tests done to prove it was not being caused by gluten if you could point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.
Here’s one of the well known examples: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23648697/
It should be noted that I’m not saying there’s no evidence for a non-celiac response. Just that all the evidence for it being gluten is minimal to non-existent. FODMAPs are one of the primary areas of focus at the moment as actually being responsible and all the claims about it being gluten largely being misinformation that is being socially perpetuated.
If the experimenter never really interacts with the participants and there is no subjective measurement being made there isn’t really any benefit to being double blind, it’s just overhead at that point
