/sci/ - Science & Math

because the benefits of the placebo effect are often nowhere near as great as the benefits of actual medication, but can be enough to prevent people from seeking actual treatment for their illness. eg:

>person has cancer
>they take some homeopathic remedy and "feel" like their improving because of placebo effect
>decline radiation, chemotherapy, or surgery because they think theyre getting better
>homeopathic shit isnt actually stopping the spread of the cancer
>they end up dying when they could have survived if they had chosen conventional treatment

>>7530292
literally, steve jobs: the post.

>>7530282
Placebos can be good for mental disorders and that kind of shit. But a sugarpill won't cure cancer even if it makes the person feel like it does

>>7530304
yeah, or placebo stuff like ColdFX can actually be beneficial because it stops people from going to their doctor and demanding antibiotics, which wont do anything for their viral infection but contribute to problems with antibiotic resistance

>>7530282
The same reason why snake oil is

It's not seen as bad in and of itself.
The placebo effect is just a thing that happens. Like gravity.

What is seen as a bad thing is when people hold up Real! Snake© brand healing oils! and claim they are effective BECAUSE they can trigger the placebo effect.

>>7530282
I find it incredibly interesting especially whether or not it is linked to belief. Like faith healers, or prayer. This is the weakness of scientists. They are too afraid to explore the possibility that mind over matter is a reality. Has science ever investigated monks that purport to cool or heat their bodies at will, or people who train their heart to beat so slowly they can hold their breath much longer than normal people?

>Why is placebo seen as a bad thing?
Because it can demonstrate that the mind-body system can heal itself based on information alone. It can even work when you know that it's a placebo, but nothing will help when you want (or need) to be sick for some reason, not even chemo. This goes against the grain of primitive materialism.

>>7530282
placebos are a necessary part of medical research. The people taking placebos constitute a control group that can be used to obtain baseline data that all experimental data could be compared to. Without placebos, there is no good control group, and without a control, the data from an experiment means very little

>>7530499
I find it incredibly interesting that you criticize scientists to explore possibilities they have already explored while not even presenting any alternative to the scientific method for how we should gain reliable knowledge about such. It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

The placebo is kinda an ethical dilemma. Although, if you are in a situation where you may be taking a placebo you aren't in that trial for yourself, you are there to help future users of the medication. the ethical dilemma arises in the scenario "drug has shown promise in pool, statistical difference from placebo." well its still in its trial phase, its potential side affects haven't been able to be determined. Do you stop the study and give all groups the drug, or do you continue the study for the betterment of the entire population of those affected with this ailment? It might be a wonder drug, that kills all users 3 months after taking. who knows.

>>7530302
Thank you for reminding me of Steve Jobs.
Truly an example for all hipsters out there, one can only hope they follow his example.

>>7530282
It's not a bad thing, but if you want to find out if a drug is actually useful you have to see if it is statistically more effective than just a placebo.

>>7530591
It demonstrates no such thing. The well-supported explanation is that it's a form of confirmation bias. We observe the placebo effect in researchers in non-double blind clinical studies. Believing your patient is taking something that has a certain side effect makes you just as much more sensitive to false positives as the patient himself.

>>7530647
>Without placebos, there is no good control group
What is asserted without evidence is refuted without evidence

>>7530282
Because it's literally sugar?
Do you think you can actually treat serious illness with fucking sugar? You may feel well but shit is not fixing anything.

>>7531035
>confusing "refute" and "repudiate"
sarah palin pls go

>>7531063
Except for when it does.
You can't placebo cancer away, but it can help against smaller illnesses.

>>7530282
Because usually you're paying for the real treatment, but you're not actually getting it.