Misplaced Pages

Talk:Placebo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:12, 26 August 2019 editTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,137 edits →Real or not: because of trashing← Previous edit Revision as of 21:01, 26 August 2019 edit undoWikiman2718 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,064 edits →Real or not: ReTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 170: Line 170:
Why should anyone have to show those things? —] (]) 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Why should anyone have to show those things? —] (]) 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
:Because you have been trashing Cochrane's conclusion that placebos do not heal any real disease. ] (]) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC) :Because you have been trashing Cochrane's conclusion that placebos do not heal any real disease. ] (]) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
:: That conclusion is false. The last decade of research has shown that placebos can produce objective improvements in various diseases. —] (]) 21:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


== Intro == == Intro ==

Revision as of 21:01, 26 August 2019

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Placebo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Daily page views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPharmacology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is a candidate to be the Medicine Collaboration of the Month.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Contemporary Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Contemporary philosophy

To-do list for Placebo: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2018-08-21


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Introduction, several other sections
  • Merge : References instead of multiple citations to same reference (use <ref=name"...") If there ever were any, none now. Some first author names repeat, but to different articles.
  • Verify : Check if everything is correct
  • Other : sort "further reading" references alphabetically (and perhaps by type)? Section no longer exists. "See also" has only three listings.
Placebo was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.
High traffic

On 31 May 2010, Placebo was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Another possible historical account

I found this in The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton (1621):

--- And sometimes a strong conceit or apprehension, as Valesius proves, will take away diseases: in both kinds it will produce real effects. Men, if they see but another man tremble, giddy or sick of some fearful disease, their apprehension and fear is so strong in this kind, that they will have the same disease. Or if by some soothsayer, wiseman, fortune-teller, or physician, they be told they shall have such a disease, they will so seriously apprehend it, that they will instantly labour of it. A thing familiar in China (saith Riccius the Jesuit), If it be told them they shall be sick on such a day, when that day comes they will surely be sick, and will be so terribly afflicted, that sometimes they die upon it. Dr. Cotta in his discovery of ignorant practitioners of physic, cap. 8, hath two strange stories to this purpose, what fancy is able to do... --- from: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10800/10800-h/ampart1.html

Is it a chimera?

There is research suggesting that the placebo effect does not exist, is over-blown, or is merely psychological. 2012/02/05 BY THE ORIGINAL SKEPTICAL RAPTORHow the placebo effect proves nothing and means nothing at skeptical raptor;Placebo effects are weak: regression to the mean is the main reason ineffective treatments appear to work Published December 11, 2015 at dcscience.net;Perspect Biol Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 Oct 1. Published in final edited form as:Perspect Biol Med. 2009 Autumn; 52(4): 518. doi: 10.1353/pbm.0.0115 PMCID: PMC2814126NIHMSID: NIHMS168943PMID: 19855122 The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing; and more in any Internet search using 'fallacy of the placebo effect' as a search term. Kdammers (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Placebo studies"

Note there's a discussion at WP:FT/N about our Placebo studies article. In particular it has been suggested that some of it might be merged here. Eyes from placebo-savvy editors welcome ... Alexbrn (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Real or not

There seems to be consensus at this page that the placebo effect is not "real" in the sense that it can only improve self-reported outcomes and does not result in healing. This viewpoint is based on a few rather old reviews, and is contradicted by numerous more recent reviews such as these. This list of references is by no means comprehensive and represents just a small part of the recent research that has been conducted on the subject. This article's view on placebos needs to be updated. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. Benedetti, Fabrizio; Carlino, Elisa; Pollo, Antonella (2011-1). "How placebos change the patient's brain". Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 36 (1): 339–354. doi:10.1038/npp.2010.81. ISSN 1740-634X. PMC 3055515. PMID 20592717. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Pacheco-López, Gustavo; Engler, Harald; Niemi, Maj-Britt; Schedlowski, Manfred (2006-9). "Expectations and associations that heal: Immunomodulatory placebo effects and its neurobiology". Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 20 (5): 430–446. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2006.05.003. ISSN 0889-1591. PMID 16887325. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. Sheldon, Robert; Opie-Moran, Morwenna (12 2017). "The Placebo Effect in Cardiology: Understanding and Using It". The Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 33 (12): 1535–1542. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.017. ISSN 1916-7075. PMID 29173596. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. Quattrone, Aldo; Barbagallo, Gaetano; Cerasa, Antonio; Stoessl, A. Jon (08 2018). "Neurobiology of placebo effect in Parkinson's disease: What we have learned and where we are going". Movement Disorders: Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society. 33 (8): 1213–1227. doi:10.1002/mds.27438. ISSN 1531-8257. PMID 30230624. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Colagiuri, B.; Schenk, L. A.; Kessler, M. D.; Dorsey, S. G.; Colloca, L. (2015-10-29). "The placebo effect: From concepts to genes". Neuroscience. 307: 171–190. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.08.017. ISSN 1873-7544. PMC 5367890. PMID 26272535.
  6. Peciña, M.; Zubieta, J.-K. (2015-4). "Molecular mechanisms of placebo responses in humans". Molecular Psychiatry. 20 (4): 416–423. doi:10.1038/mp.2014.164. ISSN 1476-5578. PMC 4372496. PMID 25510510. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Medicine is littered with studies of imaginary things. Homeopathy, for example. The issue here is that those arguing for the existence of a placebo effect are primarioly either quacks trying to use it to validate inert treatments (usully acupuncture) or are ctually studying something else - the effect of perception on physical symptoms. What you're offering is primary studies into a thing, predicated on the belief that it exsts, as rebuttal to review studies that say the thing does not exist. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm offering up six reviews saying that it exists, all published in Medline indexed journals. And this was just what I found on my first pass of pubmed. You are offering up one review saying that it doesn't. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No, they assume it exists and try to quntify it. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
1) That is not so. These reviews show a lot of empirical evidence. 2) Wikipedians should not try to peer review studies. If the bulk of the literature finds that it exists (even if it doesn't) than Misplaced Pages should too. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I see that you reverted by addition of these two books to the further reading section, saying that it makes no sence to have a book on the neurobiology of something that doesn't exist. I would like to add these two books to the pile of evidence that the placebo effect does exist. It should be noted that the amount that we know about the neurobiology of the placebo effect is too large to fit into one book. --Wikiman2718 (talk)

Actually one book. Show me the evidence that this is considered to be a worthwhile contribution to reality-bsed treatment? You seem very keen to refactor this article to show the belief that placebos are real. That's problematic. I note also that virtually everything the (single) author has ever done, is promoting the idea that the placebo effect is a thing. She seems very vested in this notion. You'll forgive me for being suspicious: this field of research looks incredily like acupucture studies or homeoapthy studies - endless discussion of "how X works" while studiously ignoring anything that shows it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Most medical professionals seem to take the placebo effect as a given, assuming that the patient's expectation of something can result in a change in perception or a psychosomatic response. That may very well be incorrect, but it's far from being a fringe belief. This is what my pharmacology textbook has to say:
The 'placebo response' (see review by Enck et al, 2013) is widely believed to be a powerful therapeutic effect, producing a significant beneficial effect in about one-third of patients. While many clinical trials include a placebo group that shows improvement, few have compared this group diretly with untreated controls. A survey of these trial results (Hróbjartsson & Gotzche, 2001) concluded (controversially) that the placebo effect was often insignificant, except in the case of pain relief, where it was small but significant. They concluded that the popular belief in the strenght of the placebo effect is misplaced, and probably reflects in part the tendency of many symptoms to improve spontaneously and in part the reporting bias of patients who want to please their doctors. (Rang & Dale's Pharmacology, 2016)
The paper they cite for "widely believed" is this 2013 review in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. The website of the American Cancer Society which we cite says: Even though they don’t act on the disease, placebos affect how some people feel. This happens in up to 1 of 3 people. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: Placebos have been found to produce clinically significant improvements in some diseases, but this is not the same as asserting that they should be used in clinical settings. Some argue that they should, while others argue that this amounts to deceiving the patient and is therefore unethical. We should keep these two discussions distinct. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: I have seen no evidence that placebos shrink tumors. I'm sure that everything the American Cancer Society said is true in the context of cancer treatment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No, they have not been found to produce clinical improvements in any disease. They have been shown to produce temprary changes in symptoms of diseases, but this is generally restricted to self-reported and subjective symptoms. Example: the infamous asthma study found that patients resported improvements, but measurements showed no change at all in lung function - which is pretty dangerous. Thikning your asthma meds are workign when they aren't is a realy bad outcome. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Þjarkur, it's not a fringe belief, what's fringe is the move from "placebos make people feel better" to "this is how placebos maake people better". That's the problem. All the objective data says people feel better, but not much, not for long, and they nly feel it, it doesn't translate into objective effects. Bear in mind that there are at least two widely-promoted forms of SCAM that claim to harness the placebo effect: acupuncture and homeopathy. Neither of these is actually shown to have any objectively measurable effect on te disease proecesses when you blind and test properly. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, acupuncture and homeopathy claim to be active treatments, not placebos. It's their opponents who dismiss them as placebos. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
In some diseases placebos produce only perception of improvement (such as asthma) while in others (such as pain and Parkinson's) it can produce real improvement. This has been determined by empirically, and the biological mechanisms have been identified. For example, this review finds that placebos reduce symptoms in Parkinson's disease. In finds that placebos cause the brain to release dopamine. That means the mechanism of action for placebos in Parkinson's is the same as for active drugs: they raise dopamine levels in certain parts of the brain. Furthermore, the size of the effect depends on the patient's expectation of improvement, and larger dopamine release can be conditioned through prior exposure. It is also well-verified that placebo analgesics reduce pain, and even the 2010 review that is cited in the article finds this. Placebo analgesics cause the release of endorphins, which are natural painkillers. Another study (that I can't seem to find right now) found that placebo analgesia is blocked by the opiate antagonist naltrexone. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I would be fine with the Parkinson's disease study, as it fits the criteria for being a reliable secondary medical source. Ideological discussions about the placebo effect won't get us anywhere − it comes down to whether editors can supply information that is supported by acceptable sources. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Both acupuncture and homeopathy have a history of claiming to harnes the "placebo effect", including acupuncture claiming that because sham acupuncture and real acupuncture are indistinguishable, so acupuncture harnesses the "placebo effect" relaly well, give us more money please.
Meanwhile back in the real world the evidence for objective effects is sketchy at best, and the risks of claiming the placebo narrative are demosntrated by the asthma case. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718 I am looking for a critique of that naltrexone study. As Ir ecall it was the usual shit: based on self-reported subjective outcomes. Virtually every study of the "placebo effect" is based on patient questionnaires. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Can you show the review (and the original study)? Even the American Cancer society article stated that placebo analgesics cause the release on endorphins. That makes it completely implausible that placebo analgesics would not produce clinical improvement in real outcomes. There seems to be far more evidence for than against here. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If you have reliably sourced information (see WP:MEDRS for guidelines), feel free to add it to the article. I'm wary that this discussion is turning into a debate on the placebo effect and I don't think that's going to get us anywhere. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I am familiar with the analysis you just added (). It's perfectly emblematic of the problem: virtually every included study has subjective endpoints (e.g. Parent-reported ADHD Scale, SDQ). There is a profound lack of data based on objective measurements, and on the rare occasions when subjective and objective outocmes are compared (e.g. ) the result clearly shows no objective effect. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
A few months ago I added a meta-analysis on insomnia treatments that makes a similar point. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
These studies have al the elemnts of "tooth fairy science". Guy (Help!) 11:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any studies to show this? So far it just seems to be one 2010 review and a statement from the American Cancer Society based on that review. In a field like this with lots of research, we should rely on reviews from the last five years. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that pain is neither a fully objective nor a fully subjective experience. And I'd be careful about saying placebos can objective outcomes for Parkinson's (my hunch is that it can't improve life expectancy, for instance). But the source does provide evidence that there is a link between placebo treatment of Parkinson's and the release of hormones, which is an objective effect. And I agree about the need to evaluate each claim on a case-by-case basis. It comes down to whether the information is backed by reliable sources. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This review finds that placebos can improve motor control in Parkinson's disease by causing the brain to release dopamine. That's the same mechanism as the active drug. That's about as objective as it gets. I don't think anyone's ever studied the effect on life expectancy. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, and I'm fine with that studies' findings being added to the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That is indeed what it appears to show, but I think you may be missing my point. Overall, the evidence strongly shows that placebo effects are purely subjective. If, uniquely, Parkinsons can show an objective effect, then that would be a remarkable finding but it doesn't change the fact that if you look at pretty much any review of placebos, you find all the outcomes to be subjective and self-reported, and very few actually even test for any objective outcome. Where this is done, none is found. So if we cover PD it should be as an exception that's not yet understood, rather than as rebuttal to the fact that the placebo effect is not a thing. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The reviews listed above cover Parkinson's, pain, depression, and even some immunological disorders. You keep saying that there are many reviews debunking these claims, but I have yet to see them. The reviews presently cited in the article are not from the last five years. It looks like the sources that say that placebos can effect only self-reported outcomes are outdated. If you have any WP:MEDRS sources that say otherwise, please show them. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
So, this lands us with "extraordinary claim, probably bogus, yet not debunked in the scientific literature". Do you think we play whack-a-mole? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Show sources, please. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have sources, but we have WP:RULES, such as WP:REDFLAG. Do you realize that this could be the misconception of the year, next year will be another misconception about placebos which will still be not debunked, the year after that another misconception and so on. That's what I mean by whack-a-mole. You will keep edit warring to include the misconception of the current year. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: 1) My edits come nowhere near the threshold for an edit war. Please do not accuse me of that without evidence. 2) WP:REDFLAG states that extraordinary claims must be justified by multiple high quality sources. I have shown seven so far, and there are a lot more available. There were only ever two studies finding the opposite: one was from 2010, and the other from the 1990s. Neither is WP:MEDRS. If you want your claim to stand, you will have to show some valid sources. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is upon those who want to change the status quo. Misplaced Pages isn't for bleeding-edge knowledge, it is for established, banal and boring knowledge. Also, there is no need that an edit war is fast-paced. Slowly changing an article with yet undebunked knowledge is still edit-warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I have shown the appropriate sources. The knowledge is well-established. If you disagree, I challenge you to find one WP:MEDRS source to validate your opinion. Also, WP:ONUS only applied to verifiable claims, which yours isn't. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
You're working under the misconception that WP:RS trump WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS is a guideline... Are you proposing we ignore it? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I know. And I find bizarre to say that Cochrane isn't MEDRS-compliant. Previously I meant: reliable sources do not trump policies and guidelines. Perhaps I was too concise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: It is not from the last five years. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Tgeorgescu, it isn't an extraordinary claim to say that the placebo effect has objective effects. The science shows that the placebo effect influences neurotransmitters, which is clearly objective. It would be more of an extraordinary claim to say that the placebo effect has no objective effects, which seems to be what the article is saying at the moment.
It seems there is a bit of cherry picking in terms of the reviews used here. The sleep review that we use says there are no objective changes to sleep onset. However, as far as I can see, the review didn't actually look at any studies that measured objective sleep onset. Other reviews do find a significant difference in sleep onset. And the Cochrane review is 18 years old.
The problem with depression is that there are no 3-arm trials comparing antidepressants to placebo to no treatment, so we don't have any studies to definitely say there is an objective placebo effect. However, given what we know about neuroscience, it would be somewhat extraordinary if there wasn't any objective placebo effect.--sciencewatcher (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you realize that your argument applies to any form of quackery, e.g. faith healing? And in which way "placebo changes neurotransmitters" is different from "watching A Clockwork Orange changes neurotransmitters"? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
We already discussed truth. Let's keep this about verifiability, please. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, that is what WP:REDFLAG means. You cannot trump Cochrane with an ordinary review, which might as well get debunked in a couple of years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The Cochrane review is not from the last five years. I have have not shown one review, but several (as WP:REDFLAG requires). --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
You have to have better sources that a scientific revolution has happened. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the conclusion of the Cochrane review was widely accepted in the first place. The studies I am looking at show that it wasn't. The evidence in favor of a placebo effect is absolutely overwhelming. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Why then isn't your claim big news all over the world: "Placebos finally vindicated"? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That is a loaded question. It implies that the placebo effect was ever in genuine doubt. But regardless, you can find tons of news articles on this subject (both mainstream and scientific). —Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, that smacks of WP:PROFRINGE. The reality-based community doubts that there is any solid evidence for placebo healing anything, except imaginary illnesses. You have been warned of discretionary sanctions. Your POV is: Cochrane on placebos is not good now and was never good, there wasn't ever any genuine doubt about placebos. Are you for real? Do you realize that our article tells a quite different story? Do you realize that when people wanted hard evidence of objective effects of placebos, they could not find any or they had stumped on a statistical fluke? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Refusing to acknowledge WP:MEDRS guidelines is disruptive. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that it is disruptive. The question is, however: who does that, you or me? E.g. I'm not the one bashing Cochrane... Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
You are. The rule says five years. That rule was created specifically for situations like these-- information becomes outdated. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:Wikilawyering. Do mind that I wasn't the only one who has reverted your edits today. See WP:1AM. You need WP:CONSENSUS for your edits, otherwise status quo wins by default. Also, daring to bash Cochrane on Misplaced Pages means that you have huevos: such daring usually ends badly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That one old review is the entire argument. We have consensus that placebos work for some conditions (e.g. Parkinsons), which means we have consensus it is outdated. Despite the massive amount of research that has been conducted in this field, there are literally no reviews from that last five years that support your viewpoint. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I did not know that there is anyone who really suggests treating Parkinsons with placebos. Otherwise, why bother with expensive, sophisticated research? As others have told you, in the research about placebos there is a lot of bunk research. Garbage in, garbage out. As the old rhyme says, "Catch Eusapia by the toe". So that five years limit is not as hard as you might think. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read the entire talk page. This is not about whether or not placebos should be used in clinical practice. That question is entirely separate from their efficacy, which most certainly exists for Parkinson's, pain, and some other conditions. And your one review is nine years old.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Placebos are effective against Parkinson's.
Therefore placebos should be used as medicines against Parkinson's.
But that does not happen.


Do you realize we have a logic problem here? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope. There are a lot of reasons not to prescribe an effective medication. In this case, the main argument against is the ethics of deception. It's not even about biology. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Wrong: the ethics of deception only applies to ineffective medicines. If the medicine is really effective, there is no deception involved. You cannot eat your cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. And even if that logic were valid, it would be original research. If you're unwilling (and unable) to show sources, this will have to go to arbitration. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Much luck with that. You'll need it because of WP:BOOMERANG (like I were the only one who has reverted your edits today).

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Misplaced Pages community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Misplaced Pages community tends to think they are important. Misplaced Pages articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Misplaced Pages's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Misplaced Pages community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Misplaced Pages really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Misplaced Pages. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: How many WP:MEDRS reviews would it take to make you change your mind? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think this is what Tgeorgescu's argument boils down to: " The reality-based community doubts that there is any solid evidence for placebo healing anything, except imaginary illnesses." So are you saying that depression is imaginary? What about Parkinson's? And no, wikipedia isn't about the "majority" of editors holding an article hostage. It is based on evidence, reviews, and logical discussion. Calling depression imaginary isn't based on any kind of logic or science, never mind basic humanity. If you have anything useful to add, go ahead. Otherwise I'm not sure how useful further discussion is. Misplaced Pages uses high quality reviews. End of story. If you want to discuss the reviews then we're all ears, but this discussion is getting silly and useless. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Here are some reviews that find evidence of a placebo effect. They are all medline indexed and from the last five years. If this goes to dispute resolution, I will submit these as evidence. If not, these reviews will be useful to editors wishing to improve the article. @Tgeorgescu: You have stated that you have no reviews from the last five years. Just to make it clear, the only evidence for your case is this nine year old review? If you want to continue this dipute, tell me now and I will submit the form. Otherwise I am ready to declare consensus and begin improving the article. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. Quinn, Veronica F.; Colagiuri, Ben (2015-6). "Placebo interventions for nausea: a systematic review". Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. 49 (3): 449–462. doi:10.1007/s12160-014-9670-3. ISSN 1532-4796. PMID 25515086. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Colloca, Luana; Howick, Jeremy (2018). "Placebos Without Deception: Outcomes, Mechanisms, and Ethics". International Review of Neurobiology. 138: 219–240. doi:10.1016/bs.irn.2018.01.005. ISSN 2162-5514. PMC 5918690. PMID 29681327.
  3. Pecina, Marta; Zubieta, Jon-Kar (2018). "Expectancy Modulation of Opioid Neurotransmission". International Review of Neurobiology. 138: 17–37. doi:10.1016/bs.irn.2018.02.003. ISSN 2162-5514. PMC 6314670. PMID 29681324.
  4. Belcher, Annabelle M.; Ferré, Sergi; Martinez, Pedro E.; Colloca, Luana (12 20, 2018). "Role of placebo effects in pain and neuropsychiatric disorders". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry. 87 (Pt B): 298–306. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.06.003. ISSN 1878-4216. PMC 5722709. PMID 28595945. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Coste, Joël; Montel, Sébastien (03 01, 2017). "Placebo-related effects: a meta-narrative review of conceptualization, mechanisms and their relevance in rheumatology". Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 56 (3): 334–343. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kew274. ISSN 1462-0332. PMID 27477808. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. Frisaldi, Elisa; Piedimonte, Alessandro; Benedetti, Fabrizio (2015-1). "Placebo and nocebo effects: a complex interplay between psychological factors and neurochemical networks". The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 57 (3): 267–284. doi:10.1080/00029157.2014.976785. ISSN 0002-9157. PMID 25928679. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. Holmes, R. D.; Tiwari, A. K.; Kennedy, J. L. (11 2016). "Mechanisms of the placebo effect in pain and psychiatric disorders". The Pharmacogenomics Journal. 16 (6): 491–500. doi:10.1038/tpj.2016.15. ISSN 1473-1150. PMID 27001122. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. Hansen, E.; Zech, N.; Meissner, K. (2017-10). "". Der Internist. 58 (10): 1102–1110. doi:10.1007/s00108-017-0294-0. ISSN 1432-1289. PMID 28702702. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. Sheldon, Robert; Opie-Moran, Morwenna (12 2017). "The Placebo Effect in Cardiology: Understanding and Using It". The Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 33 (12): 1535–1542. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.017. ISSN 1916-7075. PMID 29173596. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. Gross, Liza (02 2017). "Putting placebos to the test". PLoS biology. 15 (2): e2001998. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001998. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 5319646. PMID 28222121. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  11. Benedetti, Fabrizio (2014-11-05). "Placebo effects: from the neurobiological paradigm to translational implications". Neuron. 84 (3): 623–637. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.023. ISSN 1097-4199. PMID 25442940.
  12. Quattrone, Aldo; Barbagallo, Gaetano; Cerasa, Antonio; Stoessl, A. Jon (08 2018). "Neurobiology of placebo effect in Parkinson's disease: What we have learned and where we are going". Movement Disorders: Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society. 33 (8): 1213–1227. doi:10.1002/mds.27438. ISSN 1531-8257. PMID 30230624. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. Pacheco-López, Gustavo; Engler, Harald; Niemi, Maj-Britt; Schedlowski, Manfred (2006-9). "Expectations and associations that heal: Immunomodulatory placebo effects and its neurobiology". Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 20 (5): 430–446. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2006.05.003. ISSN 0889-1591. PMID 16887325. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
I much prefer the wording "which is not designed to have a therapeutic value" (which is very similar to the current wording, so that's fine). Because it paraphrases a professional medical organisation's definition, that means it wasn't simply made up on the spot by a Wikipedian. Likewise I prefer the wording that "In general, placebos...have no impact on the disease itself" because it avoids stating this is particularly common while leaving open the possibility of exceptions. Even when they actually do have objective effects, such as with Parkinsons, this may be more to do with helping the brain produce hormones that relieve symptoms, rather than fighting the disease. We can do more to cover conditions where an objective effect has been noted. There is also some later wording on the Cochrane article that could be tweaked, but I would be careful, as these are usually the best evidence you can get for medical evidence. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, then show me the evidence that placebos are healing any real illness, instead of some transient effects of feeling better. There is a catch-22 involved here: if the placebo is effective, it should be marketed as a cure for that illness. So, what does it even mean to say that the placebo is effective? It leads to logical paradoxes, so of course saying that is nonsense. And User:Sciencewatcher: don't put your words in my mouth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: The above studies answer your first challenge. And the argument that placebos are not prescribed is invalid. Discuss sources or drop the stick.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've taken the matter to WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you honestly suggesting that my viewpoint is fringe? I showed thirteen high quality reviews. This is forum shopping, and your editing is becoming tendentious. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPA. I've done it according to WP:SEEKHELP. Since there is only one forum, there is no forum shopping involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I'm not making a personal attack. I'm warning you that I'm going to report you to ANI if you don't change your editing pattern. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
As Anywikiuser told you above There is also some later wording on the Cochrane article that could be tweaked, but I would be careful, as these are usually the best evidence you can get for medical evidence. In case you did not get it: you are the Cochrane basher at this talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I’m sure it was great evidence... ten years ago. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Your exception to Cochrane's finding is already integrated in our article. What we (me and several other editors) don't allow you to do is claim all-out victory, namely claim that placebos do heal real illnesses, which is a fringe view according to Cochrane. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The claim is that the evidence has changed in the last decade. In fact, we have consensus for this in the cases of pain and Parkinson’s. Therefor, if you want to call my 13 studies fringe, you will have to do it with an up-to-date source. And read the studies again. This goes a lot further than Parkinson’s.
—Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
There has to be extraordinary evidence that a world-shattering revolution took place in medicine. We have already integrated your POV, what we don't claim is that it would be "WP:THETRUTH, the whole truth, nothing but the truth". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
You’re repeating yourself. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I do see some evidence for your POV, what I don't see is extraordinary evidence for trashing Chochrane's findings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
You don’t see thirteen studies contradicting a decade-old finding as evidence that the decade-old finding is out of date? I can find more, if you demand it. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Again: you exception was noted. What you did not show is that placebos (speaking in general) heal any real illness. What you did not show is patients who have permanently switched from medicines to placebos without compromising their health. We all agree that placebos could change neurotransmitters (as does watching A Clockwork Orange), what we don't agree is that placebos heal real diseases. For if all evidence is confined to experimental conditions for a short period, you don't have much. Even the ring of a bell could make dogs salivate, we knew that much. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Why should anyone have to show those things? —Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Because you have been trashing Cochrane's conclusion that placebos do not heal any real disease. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That conclusion is false. The last decade of research has shown that placebos can produce objective improvements in various diseases. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Intro

I think "no specific therapeutic properties" is fairly vague and is less likely to be understood by the general reader than the previous intro. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The previous definition was not technically correct, as we have established on this talk page that placebos can have therapeutic value in some conditions, such as Parkinson's. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
But the change doesn't seem to cover that either, since if it's being used for Parkinson's then it is being used for a specific therapeutic property, or what? (Describing this "supposed to not work vs may work" reminds me of this xkcd) – Thjarkur (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
A specific therapeutic property in the case of Parkenson’s diseases would be a property intended specifically to treat Parkinson’s disease (e.g dopamine agonists) rather than one that works for any condition that responds to placebo. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The "not designed" wording actually paraphrases the American Society of Pain Management Nursing's definition. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Categories: