Slashdot Mirror


Placebos Are Getting More Effective

Wired is reporting that the well-known "placebo effect" seems to be increasing as time goes on. Fewer and fewer medications are actually making it past drug trials since they are unable to show benefits above and beyond a placebo. "It's not only trials of new drugs that are crossing the futility boundary. Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. In many cases, these are the compounds that, in the late '90s, made Big Pharma more profitable than Big Oil. But if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them. Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s. One estimated that the so-called effect size (a measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled over that time."

10 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Shooting themselves in the foot by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Drug companies should never have started advertising directly to end users.

  2. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or possible the patent is no longer in effect, so no one bothered to fudge any data this time? Perhaps they were too busy "gathering" data for new drugs?

  3. Re:WTF by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article seems to be fully of quibbles about simplifications or unscientific use of language rather than the overall point (which it finally gets to in the final paragraph).

    It's not unthinkable that placebos could be having a more pronounced results than they have in the past. In the Prozac example, psychiatry related drugs are especially prone to placebo effects. Given that the average citizen knows a lot more about these drugs than they did 10+ years ago due to ads and the media, they're more likely to believe it'll work for them than people used to.

    Changes attitudes towards drugs having an effect on placebos isn't something that should be dismissed offhand like that writer seems to be doing.

  4. Re:WTF by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The GP's article suggested another reason:

    He goes on to talk about how placebo has become a crisis of the industry, but I have another explanation: it's not "placebo" that's the problem. If drugs in testing cannot outperform placebo, then the researches have done a good job of testing the drugs honestly. If the researchers are failing to develop drugs that beat placebo and the company's bottom line is suffering, it's not the fault of the sugar pill. Sometimes it's either difficult or impossible to develop an effective medication. Failure is inevitable. It's how science works. If the CEOs don't like it, they have to either make up the data, or find a new business model.

    It's not anything to do with the placebo, it's that the drugs that are being developed currently don't do anything.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  5. Re:WTF by dintlu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alternately, the deluge of ads could be brain-washing Americans to think, "Without a little purple pill you'll feel bad," such that the illness itself is a nocebo effect, which placebos effectively nullify.

  6. Re:WTF by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question is not if old drugs would pass modern test but if old drugs still pass old tests. Old drugs not making it pass modern tests can mean just better tests.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  7. Re:WTF by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually no, language is *not* what is defined by the lowest common denominator, if that were the case, then modern science would go out the window as every technical term in every paper completely lost all hope of having intelligible meaning in the anarchy of broken syntax.

    Communication would be damn near impossible if every time I read a text I was not able to refer to a dictionary, but instead had to take a walk outside and poll all the halfwits hanging out the front of the local shopping mall what a given word means in a given context. I can imagine it now:

    "Hey fellas, sorry to interrupt your skateboarding and pot smoking, but would you mind telling me what you understand by the word 'pontification'? I do apologize, but I have a term paper in linguistics due in a week and I need to bring my semantics up to date according to the current popular lexicon."

    "Language evolves" is not the same as "Uneducated dipshits get to set standards".

    --
    I hate printers.
  8. Re:Personal Anecdote by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AFAIK God hasn't been known to cause nausea, heart attack, or death as a side effect.

    You haven't read much of the old testament have you?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  9. Re:WTF by LaskoVortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That sill doesn't explain why placebos are now nearly twice as effective as ~1990, but this paragraph from the article might be a factor:

    Because if you have an imaginary concocted ailment like restless leg syndrome or hyperactivity, then the imaginary effects of a sugar pill are going to work well to alleviate the imaginary symptoms of the imaginary disease.

    Pharmaceutical companies define disease these days. They advertise diseases and they push doctors to prescribe their poisonous ineffective chemicals to treat the advertised diseases.

    You could probably find a correlation between the number of advertised diseases like restless leg syndrome and this so called "placebo effect".

    --
    Just callin' it like I see it.
  10. Re:WTF by martas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a less sarcastic way to say that would be that confidence in modern medicine is increasing.