Talk:Placebo effect (disambiguation)

message: Please take a look at this new content. 
Living in Denmark, I have followed this research from when it was in progress. Very interesting! It explains a lot of things that the old views didn't do very well. To maintain a NPOV, I have attempted to limit my comments to explanations of that research.
-- Fyslee 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More content 

message: As you can see, I made a bunch of edits (one I accidentally marked as minor, sorry).  This is an initial shot at NPOVing the article without getting into a massive edit war.  The most basic problems are that: a) the placebo effect is NOT controversial, it's widely accepted in the scientific community and b) the "placebo effect is fake" view is represented even more than the prevailing scientific view (that 99% of scientists support).  That's a clear violation of NPOV. 
=== NPOV can preserve old errors ===
:If the conclusions of this large study of the literature  is correct (and there is nothing to indicate otherwise), then it should be better represented. Otherwise a strict adherence to the NPOV will be a biased support for old misunderstandings, IOW it won't be neutral at all, but simply conservative resistance to change, and impediment to progress.
:If correct, it should, with time, become the predominant viewpoint, with the old viewpoint remaining in its invaluable role as a tool for quackery. Quacks will not relinquish the old viewpoint, for obvious reasons. -- Fyslee 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: :If the conclusions of this large study of the literature  is correct (and there is nothing to indicate otherwise), then it should be better represented. Otherwise a strict adherence to the NPOV will be a biased support for old misunderstandings, IOW it won't be neutral at all, but simply conservative resistance to change, and impediment to progress.
:If correct, it should, with time, become the predominant viewpoint, with the old viewpoint remaining in its invaluable role as a tool for quackery. Quacks will not relinquish the old viewpoint, for obvious reasons. -- Fyslee 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV can preserve old errors 

message: At some point later I may expand the section supporting the placebo effect, because I know there have been NUMEROUS studies on it on many scales in many countries.  The attribution of it mostly to a single 1955 study is just a *wee bit* misleading.  
*side tangent--you may ignore*
I've looked at the abstract for the article in question, and I suppose it should be kept in to support the minority view, but I must say, it is very pseudo-scientific and its conclusions don't support its data at all. 
Many large scale studies have shown improvements from the placebo groups.  These are for disorders people have had for years, so it can't be explained away simply by saying that that they simply naturally healed or any such nonsense.  The hawthorne effect also can't seem to explain away the nocebo effect, nor why such a large number of people in a large study would be eager to please researchers to the point that they'd lie.
Not just that, but biofeedback techniques have been shown to reduce severity many kinds of symptoms, including pain.  Since biofeedback is entirely mind-controlled, it makes no sense to discount the phenomenon.
It seems to me it's just a few quacks who are trying to become famous that are trying studies like this.
*end tangent*
Nathan J. Yoder 04:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued... 

message: I have some concerns about one section: 
*The use of placebos in medical practice
:"The ethics of prescribing placebos in medical practice is highly debated. The use of placebos is often justified because it will do no harm and may do some good. With the publication studies by Hróbjartsson and Götzsche and others, the proposition that placebos may do some good is under fire."
Below is something I wrote in an article about so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM) some years ago. I believe that especially the second paragraph speaks to this point. Is there some way these concerns can be included in a NPOV way?
:Poor ethics can reveal themselves in everything from the frequent and well-intentioned use of undocumented methods and ideas to direct swindle and deception. Self-deception, with a suppression of the conscience, is an important factor here. "The end justifies the means" is a common rationalization. As long as something "works" it makes no difference if it is objectively proven or not. Subjective experience is considered to be adequate, with abundant anecdotes considered as sufficient and absolute proof. Thus empiricism is weighted too heavily and the placebo effect is exploited for all it is worth. Such a person wouldn’t dream of refusing to fulfill a patient’s wish to receive an undocumented form of treatment.
:Consequently, the practitioner loses track of what it is that really "works" with a treatment. The patient is deceived and the practitioner deceives himself. This is not a professional way to act. By thus losing touch with reality, serious illness may continue to go undiagnosed and improperly treated, while both the practitioner and the patient put their confidence in the undocumented treatment. -- Fyslee 22:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick change because what I wrote is not what I meant to write.  I will think about it in depth later (I have about a half inch thick stack of articles on this now) Thatcher131 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have bestowed a barnstar on your blessed head! Look at your User page.....;-) -- Fyslee 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: in "Conditioning" section, there is an example for conditional responce.
:For example, a person who routinely takes aspirin for pain may experience pain relief when given a pill that looks and tastes like aspirin.
isn't it a self-proving example for Placebo effect?
a better example is needed.
--Hkchan123 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-proving!!?? 

message: Good work, everyone!  I learned a lot.  I had no objection to the point of view, just the spelling of Hrobjarttson.  Apparently it's an Icelandic name and in Icelandic, it's spelled Hróbjartsson.  However, the scientist himself is lives in Denmark and Danish has no ó.  Also, the Danish version of this article doesn't spell it with an accent, so I think it's more correct without.
I do have a problem with the "Methodology of Administration" section.  It seems like an early version of this article.  It makes some good points but jumps all over the place.  Anyone interested in rewriting (or even deleting) it? Dblomgren 04:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Hrobjartsson, Methodology of Administration section 

message: This article is in desperate need of help as regards the references. I have added the references code, so now it is possible to turn all links and the existing notes into proper linkable references that don't take up space in the article. As much as possible we should also find URLs for references. One can look at other articles to see how it's done. More information here: WP:FOOT.
Here's an example of the format, taken from the subluxation disambiguation page. It shows the same reference being used later in the same article:
"Bla, bla, bla."WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic
"Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla." 
References
Here is what the code looks like:
"Bla, bla, bla."WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic
"Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla."
-- Fyslee 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References