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."
You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
There are plenty of other reasons for this to be occurring. Better testing procedures among them.
I am a science fantasy fan
Drug companies should never have started advertising directly to end users.
It seems to me that placebos aren't getting better at fixing people, just that statisticians are becoming more efficient at modifying the numbers. Soon they will rule the universe.
Here's an excellent rebuttal to this article by Peter Lipson on the Science Based Medicine blog: Science Based Medicine: Placebo Is Not What You Think It Is
Oblig. article from The Onion
People are more and more diagnosed with depression. A high placebo effect in treating depression is, in my uneducated opinion, at least partially indicative of over-diagnosis. While in the past only the truly sick were diagnosed as depressed, today perhaps some of the patients aren't really that depressed, and thus can be treated with placebo/happy thoughts. To what degree is depression caused by "wrong" behavioral and mental patterns, and to what degree is it born of a chemical imbalance? Of course, they may cause each other, but I do believe that some depression cases are not that deep-seated. If it's a deep, recurring or continuous depression, then use real drugs that changes brain chemistry and how the brain functions. If it's not that bad, a pep talk and placebo just might push the brain towards solving it's own imbalances.
Oh, and I am/was depressed. Yes, I did use medication, Zoloft to be precise.
Soon, the only drug we will need in Placebo(tm). This is to be expected since it has appeared in more clinical trials for more ailments than any other drug in history.
"His name was James Damore."
2. It's very likely nothing to do with our brains, and a lot to do with more rigorous testing.
I don't buy the 'more rigorous testing' argument - I think that pre-supposes that testing was not performed diligently in the past. I think the most likely explanation is that the diagnoses were always flawed. Depression, mentioned in the blurb, for example has physical symptoms, but no known physical cause. My hunch is that many of the ailments we have are caused by factors outside the control of drugs, and it is the extent to which taking regular medication alters behaviour that makes a difference. For example, medication that can't be taken with alcohol presents a positive side-effect for heavy drinkers if taken diligently. Any regular activity has the same positive effects as observing a ritual.
Perhaps a larger proportion of ailments today are not the result of an illness? I'd find that easy to believe.
A lot of people -- like the author of Talking Back to Prozac -- claim that some drug trials (especially for popular antidepressants) are compromised to the point that getting drugs like Prozac approved required requires a surprising amount of massaging of the data from drug trials just to get to the point where the drug seems to perform better than placebo. This New Scientist article from last year about how antidepressants' effects may have been exaggerated, has a good definition of a particular form of publication bias that is apparently common:
If that's true, then it's a gambit that would get less and less effective over time. Certainly, drug companies have a very large commercial interest in boosting the apparent effectiveness of their drugs by "enhancing" the results of their trials through selectively ignoring results they don't like. It does sound somewhat conspiracy theory-ish, but it seems like there's increasing evidence. Plus, if it's true that antidepressants are less effective than many doctors believed in the past, that's more evidence that the trials drew incorrect conclusions.
Building Better Software
Is that you, Tom Cruise? Things can go wrong in your body and they don't need a cause. You don't need to smoke to get cancer. Same thing with depression. You can bring depression upon yourself, for example with stress, but it's often just a genetic hormone deficiency. My depression hit suddenly, and I tried everything to cure it, over the course of two years. Eating different, fish oil, more vacation, rigorous exercise, more religion, less religion. Nothing worked. Still woke up at 3am wanting to kill myself. On a regular basis.
Went on Lexapro and I've been totally fine ever since.
You haven't read much of the old testament have you?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
They usually develop symptoms of depression and paranoia, but we've got a pill for that...