Talk:Nocebo

message: I am trying to update this page for a class and I wanted to know what anyone thinks of these as sources.
and
 
both of these were retrieved from pubmed.gov.Cboughner (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: New sources

message: Ergoiamtoo, you suggested changing "It is self-evident that belief kills, etc." to "Some people believe that belief kills".
In my opinion, your version is very much better than mine; however, I have amended your "Some people believe that belief kills, etc." to read "Some people maintain that belief kills, etc."
I have done this simply because, in my opinion, the sentence reads a lot better because now it does not present two different meanings of the word "believe" in the same sentence. Also, I think the position of those who hold the view in question is far better represented by saying that "they maintain X" -- in the sense that they are externally asserting that X is the case -- rather than them just internally believing that X is the case, Hope that you agree with the amendment, as I feel that it makes things even more clear along the sensible lines that you have already suggested.cogtrue 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropological Ambiguity 

message: Please can you remove the biblic quotation which is irrelevant and distracting to the topic. Please keep biblic quotations to pages relating to the bible or christianity.
*To whom it may concern: I have no "brief" for any sort of religious people, any sort of belief system, or any sort of superstition. The specific reason for including this quotation is that the quotation itself is totally linked to a specific "classic" case of a psychogenic condition. In fact the quotation appears in most texts on this topic of psychosomatic disorders (regardless of the authors' religious views) as a strong reminder that what one thinks can be realized. In my view, and particularly because of its direct applicability to the concept of nocebo -- and, especially, because it contains neither doctrine nor any other allegiance to any sort of religious teaching -- it is not only entirely appropriate in this case, but it also makes a seamless link with much that is in the literature on fear-induced conditions. Also, just in case, you decide to mount another obejection, regardless of the presence or absence of religious views within any given individual, the example of the self-inflicted, psychogenic death of Ananias Ananias and Sapphira is a classic  example. These two examples will stay in this article, unless I am specifically instructed by a very much higher authority -- a very much higher Wiki authority, that is -- to remove them, simply because (a) they fit the article 100%, and (b) they have no religious connotations whatsoever, in and of themselves, despite the fact that they appear in a well-known religious book. Cheers to whoever you areLindsay658 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone ahead and removed the quote. The reason is simple: it's just fancy text. It doesn't actually add anything to the article. Having interesting quotes to spice things up is very common in other texts, but has no place in Wikipedia. It would be like adding "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." to the article on Theatre. Interesting quote and commonly used to reference theatre, but not needed. If you really want the quote to stay, stick it in a section like "Examples of nocebo in history" or something. Just keep it out of the lead, ok?--SeizureDog 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  biblic quotation? 

message: One question comes to my mind.  Is it a Nocebo effect when one takes medicine that someone believes won't help him, and while the body is cured the mind still suffers.   This should probably be in the introduction as the introduction seems to only talk about placebos, however there's very good alternate items in the article (including self-willed deaths)
In addition self-willed vs. self-inflicted seems overexplained, with the bulk of the explination on self-inflicted.  Shouldn't this be more about the different forms of self-willed.  To my understanding self-willed is a unconcious act, self-inflicted is a concious act (walking in front of a bus with out noticing it vs. throwing yourself infront of a bus).  There seems little use in explaining all three forms of self-inflicted acts (religious and heroic examples both fall firmly under suicide, though you could meantion "for heroic or religious means").Kinglink 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-willed/self-inflicted needs work, as well as a clairification. 

message: Unless I'm very much mistaken, the comic completely misrepresents what nocebo means. Needs to be removed. The fat guy dies bc. he does "not believe" in the power of a plcebo..... WTF????????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.175.38 (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed it once again since [Anthony Appleyard] has not provided a explantion as why he readded it. Brainz (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just removed it again. Mr. Granger (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic 

message: The intro sentence needs to be updated to provide a definition. -Ravedave (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Probably not an RS for anything, but still good.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CGP Grey]] on nocebo 

message: I've read the articles [1] and [2] linked to from this page and it seems to me that the TGN1412 was not a nocebo. The men who were given a low dose of the real drug became ill, while those who were given a placebo were OK. Why this case is even referenced at all? --VadimIppolitov (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the TGN1412 trial had nothing whatsoever to do with nocebo effect. I'd remove the mention of this drug trial as an example of nocebo, because it patently wasn't (if the available literature is correct). However not being a professional in the field I'd be interested to hear opinions of those who are. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why TGN1412 is a nocebo? 

message: The last sentence reads: 
"Mental states such as beliefs and expectations can strongly influence the outcome of disease, the experience of pain, and even success of surgery.[3]"
The attribution appears to be a popular science book. This is an extraordinary claim that I would think should require citation of (an) actual study/ies of high quality. If this sentence is unfounded, it is egregiously misleading, and should be removed as such.(?) Thanks.
:Thanks! The sentence has been removed. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph makes extraordinary claim without substantive attribution