People in control groups are usually given a sugar pill and are observed to assess if any changes occur to their health during the experiments. How do we know that these changes, if any, were the result of taking the sugar pill and not just random changes that might have happened even without taking the placebo? Are there any studies that prove that the placebo effect really exist?
In: 0
You wouldn’t test an active ingredient against no treatment now because you wouldn’t know how much ,if any, of the effect came from the active ingredient. But there is nothing stopping people testing a placebo against no treatment since it’s the placebo effect you want to measure in that case, I presume.
Potential active medicines can be compared to a placebo *and* a control group that get no treatment at all (though nowdays they might get another already existing treatment perhaps) So the three groups could be compared. So that comparison between no treatment and a placebo treatment can be done if that’s what you were studying or may happen in normal trials. Of course a lot of research will be financed because it’s testing a possible active ingredient , testing placebos vrs no treatment seems likely a more ‘academic’ interest and possibly unethical if the participants were I’ll rather than being tested for something like response to painful stimuli.
Not only is there a placebo effect there is also a nocebo effect where the expectation of for example side effects can cause us to feel them. And quite a lot of work has been done on how the specifics of a placebo intervention can change the effect. For example the size and colour of a pill can an effect – but different colours have different effects in different cultures because of the meaning of that colour to them!
Placebos are particularly effective for conditions which involve a certain amount of interpretation and perception by the patient – for example pain. I think one of the areas still being explored is what the effect actually consists of internally. Physically a placebo seems to effect a mix of our autonomic ( not under our conscious control) nervous system, hormone production and immune responses. All things that our brain/body can do as responses to stimuli but we don’t necessarily do consciously. But significantly it’s the *expectation* rather than an actual *ingredient* that causes the effect.
I’m not a medical expert just find it interesting so I hope that makes sense and I havnt got anything significantly wrong.
You wouldn’t test an active ingredient against no treatment now because you wouldn’t know how much ,if any, of the effect came from the active ingredient. But there is nothing stopping people testing a placebo against no treatment since it’s the placebo effect you want to measure in that case, I presume.
Potential active medicines can be compared to a placebo *and* a control group that get no treatment at all (though nowdays they might get another already existing treatment perhaps) So the three groups could be compared. So that comparison between no treatment and a placebo treatment can be done if that’s what you were studying or may happen in normal trials. Of course a lot of research will be financed because it’s testing a possible active ingredient , testing placebos vrs no treatment seems likely a more ‘academic’ interest and possibly unethical if the participants were I’ll rather than being tested for something like response to painful stimuli.
Not only is there a placebo effect there is also a nocebo effect where the expectation of for example side effects can cause us to feel them. And quite a lot of work has been done on how the specifics of a placebo intervention can change the effect. For example the size and colour of a pill can an effect – but different colours have different effects in different cultures because of the meaning of that colour to them!
Placebos are particularly effective for conditions which involve a certain amount of interpretation and perception by the patient – for example pain. I think one of the areas still being explored is what the effect actually consists of internally. Physically a placebo seems to effect a mix of our autonomic ( not under our conscious control) nervous system, hormone production and immune responses. All things that our brain/body can do as responses to stimuli but we don’t necessarily do consciously. But significantly it’s the *expectation* rather than an actual *ingredient* that causes the effect.
I’m not a medical expert just find it interesting so I hope that makes sense and I havnt got anything significantly wrong.
The most direct placebo effect studies involve giving people the same sugar pill and telling one half of the group that the pill does X and the other half that the pill does Y. For example, telling half the group the pill will give them energy (and that group sees a rise in blood pressure and heart rate, and report feeling more energetic) while telling the other half the pill will help them relax (and that group sees a drop in blood pressure and heart rate, and report feeling more calm). Same fake pill, same conditions with the only difference being the “fake” intended effect, which turns out to really happen.
And every good experiment can tease out the random events from statistically significant events.
Also, I think you may misunderstand exactly what the placebo effect is because you asked “How do we know that these changes, if any, were the result of taking the sugar pill and not just random changes that might have happened even without taking the placebo?” While we have ample evidence to establish the placebo effect exists, we do not ascribe any real power to sugar pill itself – it’s the brain itself making the changes due to the suggestion that the sugar pill does something. But the pill itself does nothing – it’s just a convincing charade that “tricks” the patient’s brain into doing the actual work. Remember that every part of your body is connected to your brain, and nearly everything your brain does is inaccessible to you consciously. If your brain wants to slow down or speed up some metabolic function or turn on or off pain or other receptors, etc., it has the tools to do so.
The most direct placebo effect studies involve giving people the same sugar pill and telling one half of the group that the pill does X and the other half that the pill does Y. For example, telling half the group the pill will give them energy (and that group sees a rise in blood pressure and heart rate, and report feeling more energetic) while telling the other half the pill will help them relax (and that group sees a drop in blood pressure and heart rate, and report feeling more calm). Same fake pill, same conditions with the only difference being the “fake” intended effect, which turns out to really happen.
And every good experiment can tease out the random events from statistically significant events.
Also, I think you may misunderstand exactly what the placebo effect is because you asked “How do we know that these changes, if any, were the result of taking the sugar pill and not just random changes that might have happened even without taking the placebo?” While we have ample evidence to establish the placebo effect exists, we do not ascribe any real power to sugar pill itself – it’s the brain itself making the changes due to the suggestion that the sugar pill does something. But the pill itself does nothing – it’s just a convincing charade that “tricks” the patient’s brain into doing the actual work. Remember that every part of your body is connected to your brain, and nearly everything your brain does is inaccessible to you consciously. If your brain wants to slow down or speed up some metabolic function or turn on or off pain or other receptors, etc., it has the tools to do so.
The most direct placebo effect studies involve giving people the same sugar pill and telling one half of the group that the pill does X and the other half that the pill does Y. For example, telling half the group the pill will give them energy (and that group sees a rise in blood pressure and heart rate, and report feeling more energetic) while telling the other half the pill will help them relax (and that group sees a drop in blood pressure and heart rate, and report feeling more calm). Same fake pill, same conditions with the only difference being the “fake” intended effect, which turns out to really happen.
And every good experiment can tease out the random events from statistically significant events.
Also, I think you may misunderstand exactly what the placebo effect is because you asked “How do we know that these changes, if any, were the result of taking the sugar pill and not just random changes that might have happened even without taking the placebo?” While we have ample evidence to establish the placebo effect exists, we do not ascribe any real power to sugar pill itself – it’s the brain itself making the changes due to the suggestion that the sugar pill does something. But the pill itself does nothing – it’s just a convincing charade that “tricks” the patient’s brain into doing the actual work. Remember that every part of your body is connected to your brain, and nearly everything your brain does is inaccessible to you consciously. If your brain wants to slow down or speed up some metabolic function or turn on or off pain or other receptors, etc., it has the tools to do so.
I can’t explain li5 but the answer is „statistical significance“. You can check if the result you’re getting from a test has a chance to come by randomly / by chance / by non related effects – and how strong the chance is. The scientific community talks of significant results when this chance is as low as 5%.
But this value is only the start. Depending on your field and test you make, one should strive for higher values to have more confidence in the result. You can increase this by having a larger sample size for example:
If you have more test cases the chance of getting a specific result randomly or by non related effects is lower.
I can’t explain li5 but the answer is „statistical significance“. You can check if the result you’re getting from a test has a chance to come by randomly / by chance / by non related effects – and how strong the chance is. The scientific community talks of significant results when this chance is as low as 5%.
But this value is only the start. Depending on your field and test you make, one should strive for higher values to have more confidence in the result. You can increase this by having a larger sample size for example:
If you have more test cases the chance of getting a specific result randomly or by non related effects is lower.
I can’t explain li5 but the answer is „statistical significance“. You can check if the result you’re getting from a test has a chance to come by randomly / by chance / by non related effects – and how strong the chance is. The scientific community talks of significant results when this chance is as low as 5%.
But this value is only the start. Depending on your field and test you make, one should strive for higher values to have more confidence in the result. You can increase this by having a larger sample size for example:
If you have more test cases the chance of getting a specific result randomly or by non related effects is lower.
That’s where sample size and statistical significance come into play. If you only tested 5 people and 3 of them reported effects with the placebo then that could easily be a coincidence. If you test 5,000 people and 3,000 consistently reported effects with the placebo then that’s much less likely to be a coincidence. You can never absolutely prove things like the placebo effect because it’s not something we can actually observe. The “proof” comes from multiple studies showing that there is a correlation and that the correlation is probably not due to random chance.
That’s where sample size and statistical significance come into play. If you only tested 5 people and 3 of them reported effects with the placebo then that could easily be a coincidence. If you test 5,000 people and 3,000 consistently reported effects with the placebo then that’s much less likely to be a coincidence. You can never absolutely prove things like the placebo effect because it’s not something we can actually observe. The “proof” comes from multiple studies showing that there is a correlation and that the correlation is probably not due to random chance.
Latest Answers