Andrew W. was unable to leave a comment here so he sent it by email.
This is it:-
Are placebos under-rated? Yes they certainly are. 'Placebo' is in truth an umbrella term for a multiplicity of influences, some of which can be quantified and measured, most of which never could be. The other side of scientific rigour - which of course is a good thing historically - is a quasi scientific attempt to make all things fit the existing scientific model. Placebo implying something quantifiable is a pseudo term. In degrees of optimal, or at least acceptable, exercise, rest, diet, stress/peace of mind the body/mind tends to heal itself if at all possible. Regimens of healing or simply other people can have a bearing consciously or unconsciously- systematically or accidentally- on this. In the passage of time so can all meaningful relationships, emotional states, nature, art, literature, music, happenstances and combinations of many kinds that are accumulatively significant to that person. When double blind trials make use of placebos their procedure is tapping suggestibility and the culture's faith in medicine and adding that to the massively complex equation hinted at above. And of course with the new drug being tested the same applies. The fact that sometimes 'placebo' turns out to be more helpful than the drug is not surprising and apparently that information is suppressed (perhaps believed insignificant)after aborted trials.
It's one of those odd things . . . I live in my little house by the sea and listen to the radio and reckon I know best about more-or-less everything . . . as I keep telling the news-casters, the policiticians and all the experts interviewed there. I shout quite loud - but I'm beginning to suspect they can't hear! Sometimes, I write to my MP . . . but there's always more to say. So, here it is!
1 comment:
Andrew W. was unable to leave a comment here so he sent it by email.
This is it:-
Are placebos under-rated?
Yes they certainly are. 'Placebo' is in truth
an umbrella term for a multiplicity of influences, some of which can be quantified and measured, most of which never could
be. The other side of scientific rigour - which of course is a good thing historically - is a quasi scientific attempt to make all things fit the existing scientific model. Placebo implying something quantifiable is a pseudo term.
In degrees of optimal, or at least acceptable, exercise, rest, diet, stress/peace of mind the body/mind tends to heal itself if at all possible. Regimens of healing or simply other people can have a bearing consciously or unconsciously- systematically or accidentally- on this. In the passage of time so can all meaningful relationships, emotional states, nature, art, literature, music, happenstances and combinations of many kinds that are accumulatively significant to that person. When double blind trials make use of placebos their procedure is tapping suggestibility and the culture's faith in medicine and adding that to the massively complex equation hinted at above. And of course with the new drug being tested the same applies. The fact that sometimes 'placebo' turns out to be more helpful than the drug is not surprising and apparently that information is suppressed (perhaps believed insignificant)after aborted trials.
Post a Comment