The "Placebo/Power of Suggestion" Effect.

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Kathryn Friesen, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. I read somewhere that one-third of the population are highly suggestive,
    one-third is rarely & of course, the rest would be in the middle.
    Recently I read that this is erroneous & based on some experiment done
    in 1955 that was misinterpreted. Since I didn't write it down at the
    time, I can't back up my information, but was wondering how placebo &
    non-placebo-prone people stack up? Has much research been done on this
    phenomenon? Are they weeded out in drug trials or is that part & parcel
    of the trials?
     
    Tags:


  2. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Kathryn Friesen" <kathy37@webtv.net> wrote in message
    news:12576-3FD01CC2-43@storefull-2176.public.lawson.webtv.net...
    >
    > I read somewhere that one-third of the population are highly suggestive,
    > one-third is rarely & of course, the rest would be in the middle.
    > Recently I read that this is erroneous & based on some experiment done
    > in 1955 that was misinterpreted. Since I didn't write it down at the
    > time, I can't back up my information, but was wondering how placebo &
    > non-placebo-prone people stack up? Has much research been done on this
    > phenomenon? Are they weeded out in drug trials or is that part & parcel
    > of the trials?
    >

    That was Beecher's research. It has since been discredited, and it is now
    believed that anyone can respond to placebo. In certain contexts, trials
    of experimental pain, 100% of the subjects have shown responses to placebo.
    Some of it may be due to the placebo stimulating the release of endogenous
    endorphins (pain relievers and euphoriants). There is some evidence for
    this in acute situations.

    Alternative supporters get offended by the suggestion that they may have
    given a placebo response because they think that means it was "all in the
    mind". That is silly. Severe postoperative pain is one of the conditions
    where placebo responses are prominent.

    In clinical trials as opposed to experimental studies the placebo "response"
    rate can range from zero (with most actual pathology e.g. objective changes
    in cancer are not seen) to 60% (eg glomectomy for asthma), depending on the
    condition being treated and the theatricality of the treatment used.

    The word "response" is inaccurate, as in many contexts the improvements seen
    in the placebo group are simply due to the natural progress of the illness.
    Most illnesses fluctuate or are self-limiting. People also tend to seek
    treatment when symptoms are at their worst so that there is no mystery when
    a lot of them report feeling better later.

    But there is a lot yet to learn.

    Peter Moran
     
  3. BL 1204

    BL 1204 Guest

    >But there is a lot yet to learn.

    I don't really know that anyone has a good definition of the placebo effect, or
    why it happens, and in what contexts...........

    It seems to me that a LOT of illnesses are under at least the partial control
    of the autonomic nervous system. If a "placebo" causes some change in that, it
    could be a very material effect.

    Biofeedback has shown that we can learn to control our sympathetic nervous
    system, which can in turn (sometimes) make a dramatic difference (turnaround)
    in the course of the disease.

    It *could* be that the placebo can sometimes affect this system-- if so, it
    could be a very powerful medicine.

    It is hard to separate out those that would have gotten better anyway vs. those
    that just report feeling better vs. those that the placebo truly changed.

    I hate to bring NAET into this discussion, but a lot of people here think it
    works by the placebo effect. As everyone knows I am a HUGE NAET fan. How does
    it work? It works by re-training the autonomic nervous system to respond
    appropriately to stimuli-- so that the nervous system doesn't raise alarm bells
    in the organism upon subsequent exposure. If people want to call that placebo,
    so be it. If so then people that get NAET treatments have about a 90-90%
    placebo response..........

    As I said, *many* diseases are mediated through glitches in the central nervous
    system responses..........









    BL

    "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of
    the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

    "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
     
  4. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "BL 1204" <bl1204@aol.comforgetit> wrote in message
    news:20031205174010.16065.00000214@mb-m22.aol.com...
    > >But there is a lot yet to learn.

    >
    > I don't really know that anyone has a good definition of the placebo

    effect, or
    > why it happens, and in what contexts...........


    I think we have a good idea of its limitations, if not what actually
    uderlies it in many situations. . As I said, it mostly doesn't work on
    actual pathology, only on symptoms. Thus cancer patients can feel better
    with a placebo even if their actual cancer is not helped. The same would
    apply to a diabetic, or and AIDS sufferer.

    Likewise, you are correct that placebos could well have some phsyiological
    effects via psychological inputs into the autonomic nervous system, but that
    is also very limited in the range of effects it could have in disease
    processes. We understand pretty well what the autonomic nervous system
    does.

    I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects. Allergies are
    notoriously responsive to suggestion and also placebos in controlled trials.
    In teh absence of a plausible mode of action and/or replicable blinded
    validation of its techniques, that is by far the most likely explanation..

    Peter Moran
     
  5. BL 1204

    BL 1204 Guest

    >I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects.

    Do you consider that Biofeedback works because of the *placebo* effect?


    BL

    "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of
    the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

    "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
     
  6. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "BL 1204" <bl1204@aol.comforgetit> wrote in message
    news:20031205203435.16038.00000181@mb-m22.aol.com...
    > >I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects.

    >
    > Do you consider that Biofeedback works because of the *placebo* effect?


    No. A placebo has to involve an external influence of some kind.

    But it is possible that some similar mechanisms at the mind-body
    continuum/interface are involved. And limitations in terms of possible
    effects on physiology and pathology apply. Remember mankind has had
    millions of years to recruit such simple low-tech measures in healing, but
    has not got far.

    Peter Moran
     
  7. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The "Placebo/Power of Suggestion" Effect.
    >From: "Peter Moran" moringa@gil.com.au
    >Date: 12/5/2003 8:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id:
    ><3fd15845$0$813$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
    >
    >
    >"BL 1204" <bl1204@aol.comforgetit> wrote in message
    >news:20031205203435.16038.00000181@mb-m22.aol.com...
    >> >I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects.

    >>
    >> Do you consider that Biofeedback works because of the *placebo* effect?

    >
    >No. A placebo has to involve an external influence of some kind.
    >
    >But it is possible that some similar mechanisms at the mind-body
    >continuum/interface are involved. And limitations in terms of possible
    >effects on physiology and pathology apply. Remember mankind has had
    >millions of years to recruit such simple low-tech measures in healing, but
    >has not got far.
    >
    >Peter Moran


    How many millions??

    M thinks you are getting a bit carried away.

    Jan
     
  8. "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20031206004216.15425.00000328@mb-m03.aol.com...
    > >Subject: Re: The "Placebo/Power of Suggestion" Effect.
    > >From: "Peter Moran" moringa@gil.com.au
    > >
    > >But it is possible that some similar mechanisms at the mind-body
    > >continuum/interface are involved. And limitations in terms of possible
    > >effects on physiology and pathology apply. Remember mankind has had
    > >millions of years to recruit such simple low-tech measures in healing,

    but
    > >has not got far.

    >
    > How many millions??
    >
    > M thinks you are getting a bit carried away.


    Mankind has been around far longer than the 6000 yrs you believe.
     
  9. BL 1204

    BL 1204 Guest

    >
    >But it is possible that some similar mechanisms at the mind-body
    >continuum/interface are involved.


    yes, similar to biofeedback

    >And limitations in terms of possible
    >effects on physiology and pathology apply.


    of course, there are limitations to every modality. however, increasing number
    of disorders seem to be under the control of the autonomic nervous system.

    >Remember mankind has had
    >millions of years to recruit such simple low-tech measures in healing, but
    >has not got far.


    Like acupuncture?


    BL

    "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of
    the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

    "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
     
  10. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Keep in mind there are things such as active placebos.
    They are not all inert, but if they are compared across 2 groups the effect
    tends to be balanced.
    Anth

    "BL 1204" <bl1204@aol.comforgetit> wrote in message
    news:20031205203435.16038.00000181@mb-m22.aol.com...
    > >I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects.

    >
    > Do you consider that Biofeedback works because of the *placebo* effect?
    >
    >
    > BL
    >
    > "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram

    of
    > the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    > there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham
    >
    > "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
    >
    >
     
  11. WB

    WB Guest

    Active placebo ? An oxymoron to be sure.

    WB

    On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:08:58 -0000, "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote:

    >Keep in mind there are things such as active placebos.
    >They are not all inert, but if they are compared across 2 groups the effect
    >tends to be balanced.
    >Anth
    >
    >"BL 1204" <bl1204@aol.comforgetit> wrote in message
    >news:20031205203435.16038.00000181@mb-m22.aol.com...
    >> >I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects.

    >>
    >> Do you consider that Biofeedback works because of the *placebo* effect?
    >>
    >>
    >> BL
    >>
    >> "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram

    >of
    >> the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    >> there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham
    >>
    >> "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
    >>
    >>

    >


    --


    Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
    wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
     
  12. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >
    >"BL 1204" <bl1204@aol.comforgetit> wrote in message
    >news:20031205174010.16065.00000214@mb-m22.aol.com...
    >> >But there is a lot yet to learn.

    >>
    >> I don't really know that anyone has a good definition of the placebo

    >effect, or
    >> why it happens, and in what contexts...........

    >
    >I think we have a good idea of its limitations, if not what actually
    >uderlies it in many situations. . As I said, it mostly doesn't work on
    >actual pathology, only on symptoms. Thus cancer patients can feel better
    >with a placebo even if their actual cancer is not helped. The same would
    >apply to a diabetic, or and AIDS sufferer.
    >
    >Likewise, you are correct that placebos could well have some phsyiological
    >effects via psychological inputs into the autonomic nervous system, but that
    >is also very limited in the range of effects it could have in disease
    >processes. We understand pretty well what the autonomic nervous system
    >does.
    >
    >I am pretty certain NAET works via placebo effects. Allergies are
    >notoriously responsive to suggestion and also placebos in controlled trials.


    It is important to note that Peter Moran is referring to real, diagnosed
    allergies. It is equally important to note that NAET deals with imaginary
    conditions that are confusingly labeled as allergies.

    NAET may diagnose someone as being allergic to their own skin, lunar radiation,
    oxygen, or even water. Fluctations in the somatic components of such
    delusional conditions can well be written off as placebo response.


    >In teh absence of a plausible mode of action and/or replicable blinded
    >validation of its techniques, that is by far the most likely explanation..
    >
    >Peter Moran
    >
    >
     
  13. BL 1204

    BL 1204 Guest

    >NAET may diagnose someone as being allergic to their own skin, lunar
    >radiation,
    >oxygen, or even water. Fluctations in the somatic components of such
    >delusional conditions can well be written off as placebo response.


    Only, it ain't delusional, any more than any conditioned response. Remember
    that Pavlov's dog had a conditioned response to a bell, of all things. In NAET
    terms, that would be an "allergy" to a bell. There is no such thing as an
    allergy to a bell among immunologists.

    BL

    "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of
    the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

    "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
     
  14. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >>NAET may diagnose someone as being allergic to their own skin, lunar
    >>radiation,
    >>oxygen, or even water. Fluctations in the somatic components of such
    >>delusional conditions can well be written off as placebo response.

    >
    >Only, it ain't delusional, any more than any conditioned response. Remember
    >that Pavlov's dog had a conditioned response to a bell, of all things. In
    >NAET
    >terms, that would be an "allergy" to a bell. There is no such thing as an
    >allergy to a bell among immunologists.
    >
    >BL
    >


    There is no such thing as an allergy to water. A conditioned response is not
    the same as an allergy. If so, then the rooting reflex (sp?) that orients
    infants for nursing would be an allergy.

    NAET deals with delusional beliefs. When a person is a victim of such
    delusions then perhaps voodoo or other sorted shenanigans could reduce their
    anxiety. Education is an innoculant against most everything NAET purports to
    treat and against being bilked by NAET practitioners.

    Spread the word!
     
  15. BL 1204

    BL 1204 Guest

    > If so, then the rooting reflex (sp?) that orients
    >infants for nursing would be an allergy.


    THAT IS INSTINCT!! Not a conditioned response. And we are talking about
    negative conditioning. Obviously positive conditioning causes no problems.


    BL

    "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of
    the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

    "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
     
  16. Eric Bohlman

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    bl1204@aol.comforgetit (BL 1204) wrote in
    news:20031206141229.04179.00000237@mb-m29.aol.com:

    > Only, it ain't delusional, any more than any conditioned response.
    > Remember that Pavlov's dog had a conditioned response to a bell, of
    > all things. In NAET terms, that would be an "allergy" to a bell.
    > There is no such thing as an allergy to a bell among immunologists.


    There's no such thing as an "allergy" to a bell to anyone except Humpty-
    Dumpty. The NAET practitioners are simply redefining terms. What you're
    pretty much admitting is that if NAET works at all, it works as a form of
    desensitization for what resemble phobic conditions (i.e. the mere thought
    of being exposed to something makes the person sick). And if that's true
    it's hardly surprising; desensitization is a well-accepted mainstream form
    of behavior therapy that's known to work quite well for phobias, and
    dressing it up in mystical trappings probably doesn't impair its
    effectiveness much if at all.

    But, and this is a *big* but, using the term "allergy" for those phobic
    responses makes it sound like the desensitization *also* works against
    actual allergies, you know those conditions that involve mast-cell
    degranulation triggered by an IGE-mediated response to certain proteins or
    protein adducts. And while some of those actual allergies are mere
    nuisances and some form of behavior therapy might well reduce their impact
    on sufferers' lives (by, for example, reducing conditioned responses to the
    symptoms), some allergies (for example, tree-nut or peanut allergies)
    aren't quite so benign; they can be life-threatening. The danger here is
    that people will think that NAET can do something about *those*, and if
    they undergo it and believe it worked, they might expose themselves to
    something fatal.

    I mean, imagine an alternative medical paradigm in which "cancer" is
    redefined to include such things as toenail fungus. If some practitioner
    comes up with an alternative treatment for toenail fungus that really
    works, that would be a great thing, but it doesn't entitle him to claim
    that he's "curing cancer," and someone with cancer in the normal sense who
    used his treatment instead of conventional methods would quite possibly be
    risking his or her life.

    It's just like the Monty Python sketch about the accountant who wants to
    become a lion-tamer, but thinks of lions as anteaters. In this case, it
    looks like the NAET practitioners are redefining "allergy" to remove the
    "mental health" stigma from their treatment. In fact, the NAET "allergies"
    as you describe them sound a lot like Hubbard's "engrams." It's quite
    possible that Hubbard (or more likely some of the people he plag^hwas
    inspired by) stumbled across such conditioned responses and came up with
    something that acted as a form of desensitization for them; some of the
    lower levels of Dianetics may well function as phobia-avoidance rituals, as
    well as inducing euphoria by some endorphin-mediated process. He then, of
    course, spent the next 35 years dressing his rituals in layer upon layer
    upon layer of expensive clothing obtained from the same designers who once
    outfitted a certain emperor...
     
  17. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The "Placebo/Power of Suggestion" Effect.
    >From: Eric Bohlman ebohlman@earthlink.net
    >Date: 12/6/2003 7:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <Xns9449E1A7CD4C7ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>
    >
    >bl1204@aol.comforgetit (BL 1204) wrote in
    >news:20031206141229.04179.00000237@mb-m29.aol.com:
    >
    >> Only, it ain't delusional, any more than any conditioned response.
    >> Remember that Pavlov's dog had a conditioned response to a bell, of
    >> all things. In NAET terms, that would be an "allergy" to a bell.
    >> There is no such thing as an allergy to a bell among immunologists.

    >
    >There's no such thing as an "allergy" to a bell to anyone except Humpty-
    >Dumpty.


    You know Humpty Dumpty???

    When did he tell ya he was allergic to bells??

    >The NAET practitioners are simply redefining terms


    Oh? How many have you been to see???

    Oh, that's right, you are making this up as you go along.

    >What you're
    >pretty much admitting is that if NAET works at all


    It does for BL. Where have you been??

    <snip>

    > And while some of those actual allergies are mere nuisances


    Speaking from experience, or guessing??

    <snip>

    >The danger here is
    >that people will think that NAET can do something about *those*


    The danger might be the way you *think*, others *think*.


    >I mean, imagine an alternative medical paradigm in which "cancer" is
    >redefined to include such things as toenail fungus.


    Quite a stretch there.

    Oh, that's right, you are making this up as you go along.


    > If some practitioner
    >comes up with an alternative treatment for toenail fungus that really works.


    Doesn't take an alternative practitioner, just experience. Try Wicks salve. It
    works.

    >that would be a great thing, but it doesn't entitle him to claim
    >that he's "curing cancer,"


    LOL, these debunkers get on a roll,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    > and someone with cancer in the normal sense who
    >used his treatment instead of conventional methods would quite possibly be

    risking his or her life.

    ZZzz.

    Here try a bit of *real* chemo!!!

    http://www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/chemospill.htm

    *Ain't that purdy*????

    >It's just like the Monty Python sketch


    Yes. so far, it certainly is.

    Jan
     
  18. BL 1204

    BL 1204 Guest

    >The NAET practitioners are simply redefining terms.

    Broadening it I would say..........

    >if NAET works at all, it works as a form of
    >desensitization for what resemble phobic conditions


    Everything we learn in life is due to conditioning. So why would you separate
    some of the things we learn and call them phobic?

    >desensitization is a well-accepted mainstream form
    >of behavior therapy that's known to work quite well for phobias, and
    >dressing it up in mystical trappings probably doesn't impair its
    >effectiveness much if at all.


    I'm not much for mystical trappings. Who brought that up? Not me!! As a
    matter of fact though, neuroemotional technique does use some of the same
    principals as NAET and it works as desensitization to events, emotional trauma,
    etc. In some cases an event or emotional trauma can be attached to a substance
    of course.

    >But, and this is a *big* but, using the term "allergy" for those phobic
    >responses makes it sound like the desensitization *also* works against
    >actual allergies, you know those conditions that involve mast-cell
    >degranulation triggered by an IGE-mediated response to certain proteins or
    >protein adducts.


    It does. Not always of course, but it definitely does.

    And while some of those actual allergies are mere
    >nuisances and some form of behavior therapy might well reduce their impact
    >on sufferers' lives (by, for example, reducing conditioned responses to the
    >symptoms), some allergies (for example, tree-nut or peanut allergies)
    >aren't quite so benign; they can be life-threatening. The danger here is
    >that people will think that NAET can do something about *those*, and if
    >they undergo it and believe it worked, they might expose themselves to
    >something fatal.


    One should take supreme caution with something like this. However, I know of a
    nurse with one such peanut allergy who was cured by NAET. She was told by her
    MD to avoid all peanut products, peanut oil, etc. and she carried around an epi
    pen. She would always break out in whelps of some sort when she came in
    contact with peanuts.

    After NAET treatment for peanuts (about eleven sessions) she decided to eat
    some peanuts at the hospital where she worked, with a friend around, and the
    epi pen available. She ate the peanuts and she had no reaction.








    >
    >I mean, imagine an alternative medical paradigm in which "cancer" is
    >redefined to include such things as toenail fungus. If some practitioner
    >comes up with an alternative treatment for toenail fungus that really
    >works, that would be a great thing, but it doesn't entitle him to claim
    >that he's "curing cancer," and someone with cancer in the normal sense who
    >used his treatment instead of conventional methods would quite possibly be
    >risking his or her life.
    >
    >It's just like the Monty Python sketch about the accountant who wants to
    >become a lion-tamer, but thinks of lions as anteaters. In this case, it
    >looks like the NAET practitioners are redefining "allergy" to remove the
    >"mental health" stigma from their treatment. In fact, the NAET "allergies"
    >as you describe them sound a lot like Hubbard's "engrams." It's quite
    >possible that Hubbard (or more likely some of the people he plag^hwas
    >inspired by) stumbled across such conditioned responses and came up with
    >something that acted as a form of desensitization for them; some of the
    >lower levels of Dianetics may well function as phobia-avoidance rituals, as
    >well as inducing euphoria by some endorphin-mediated process. He then, of
    >course, spent the next 35 years dressing his rituals in layer upon layer
    >upon layer of expensive clothing obtained from the same designers who once
    >outfitted a certain emperor...
    >



    BL

    "As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of
    the rock within the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then
    there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

    "I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL
     
  19. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >> If so, then the rooting reflex (sp?) that orients
    >>infants for nursing would be an allergy.

    >
    >THAT IS INSTINCT!! Not a conditioned response.


    Is it? Does anyone here know? If I'm wrong, I'll glady retract and apologize,
    but I am currently of the belief that it is a reflex, not an instinct.


    > And we are talking about
    >negative conditioning. Obviously positive conditioning causes no problems.


    Oh, I think you'll want to reconsider that! Positive conditioning can be, uh,
    addictive!


    >
    >BL
    >
     
  20. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >One should take supreme caution with something like this. However, I know of
    >a
    >nurse with one such peanut allergy who was cured by NAET. She was told by
    >her
    >MD to avoid all peanut products, peanut oil, etc. and she carried around an
    >epi
    >pen. She would always break out in whelps of some sort when she came in
    >contact with peanuts.
    >
    >After NAET treatment for peanuts (about eleven sessions) she decided to eat
    >some peanuts at the hospital where she worked, with a friend around, and the
    >epi pen available. She ate the peanuts and she had no reaction.


    This is not true, not even remotely.
     

Share This Page

Loading...