I didn't mean to sound critical of the messenger. Sorry if it
came off that way.
I think placebo effects are quite real and that the use of
placebo trials is essential to understanding the efficacy of
pharmaceutical and psychological treatments. Placebo trials
force us to examine the whole person/system, rather than just
the disease. Personality, attitude, belief systems, stress
and coping skills, all have a very real impact on the state of
the physical body (I can't believe I said that--I deplore
dualism--body is mind and mind is body. Hmmm, how can I explain
this...?). What I mean to say is that I do not discount the
possibility of psychological contributions to disease. What
I do object to is anecdotal evidence that can too easily be
misinterpreted by an audience unpracticed in scientific inquiry.
Placebo effects in pain is a very interesting area. In
Dennis's example below, the author didn't claim to cure
arthritis or to reduce inflammation and joint damage. The
claim was that the sham surgery alleviated pain. Pain
management can often be accomplished without changing the
state of the injured or diseased area, so this type of
placebo effect seems somewhat different than those that
appear to eliminate evidence of disease.
I can't help wondering if patients in double blind clinical
trials spend their darkest moments wondering if they got the
real stuff. Is there a better way to do this?
All my best,
Pam
Dennis Goff wrote:
> I agree with Pam's warning; however, there are clinical trials of "placebo
> surgery" for the treatment of disorders other than Cancer and Parkinson's.
> There was a story in the New York Times Magazine that described the success
> of sham surgery for the treatment of arthritic pain in the knees (reference
> information below). I tried a medline search to find a reference to a
> refereed citation but did not have any luck.
>
> Dennis
