Quote:
Originally Posted by StAnselm  But it has never been tested in a double-blind experiment, or anything close. |
Of course one of the primary reasons this type of experiment was ever created is that researchers know thoughts affect reality.
In drug trials, it's a problem even with placebo-controlled groups, because as long as the people know what type of drug it is, a certain percentage of them will start having side effects. A certain percentage of people taking placebos in chemotherapy drug trials will start throwing up and their hair will fall out. That's why the stats have to show significance, where maybe only 5 percent of the placebo group has this happen but 40 percent of the medication group.
I've been doing a lot of writing about side effects of drugs, and have been looking at summaries of the clinical trials required before approval. They get some seriously weird results even in placebo-controlled double-blind experiments. For instance, in a study where 50 percent of the medication group experienced headaches while taking the drug, that's a pretty clear indicator that the drug has a side effect of headaches. However, once in a blue moon, the placebo group will show up with 40 percent getting headaches, so they have to discount headaches as a side effect.
Meanwhile, the researchers must be going WTF? If the placebo group had no idea what the actual side effects were, how come 40 percent of them showed up with headaches?
I'm not a drug manufacturer, so I always want the unanswered questions answered. I want to know how we can use these results to our health advantage. If 85 percent of people in the medication group get well, and 15 percent in the placebo group get well, I want to know about that 15 percent.