7. An eye-opener on double-blind studies
The core of present-day scientific medicine is more and more boiling down to ‘evidence based medicine’ (EBM). The essence of EBM is double-blind studies: comparing a new supposedly-active substance to placebo whereby both prescriber(s) and patients are ignorant (‘blind’) in regard to whether they get placebo or the ‘active’ substance.
◊◊◊
Nice.
◊◊◊
Everything (really: everything in this matter) stands or falls with whether blind is blind. If it is, then so much the better. If it isn’t, then present-day scientific medicine is still at a low level of science and should evolve from this with extreme urgency.
◊◊◊
So: is blind very blind? I don’t think so.
◊◊◊
The point is that a placebo doesn’t work through conscious expectation. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t work through a conscious whatsoever. If a placebo for instance lowers the blood pressure, it’s not because you consciously lower your BP. Purely consciously, you’re not capable of doing so. Placebo (or better said: your own inner strength in this) works through the subconscious. Therefore the subconscious is what is important in all this.
◊◊◊
So the pertinent question is not whether you are consciously blind, but rather whether you are subconsciously blind. That is a question that has hardly at all entered into scientifically.
◊◊◊
Take the side effects of medication. Does the subconscious register consciously-felt side effects? To me there is no doubt about this. Can it also register not-consciously-felt side effects? Let me ask it like this: why shouldn’t it? One can be certain that the subconscious registers any bodily change. Therefore also the slightest side-effect of medication.
◊◊◊
Since medication (the ‘active substance’ in double-blind studies) always has lots of side effects, while a pure placebo has as good as none, to the subconscious at least the difference is always clear. This is: at this very important level, there is little or no double-blindness at all. Let me repeat this.
◊◊◊
There is little or no double-blindness at all!
◊◊◊
The same argument can be made not only for the side-effects, but also for the meant effect. This makes it even worse!
◊◊◊
Conclusion: a double-blind study compares an active substance, potentially having lots of placebo-activity, to a placebo with relatively little placebo-activity. While such a study is supposed to lead to a subtraction of placebo-activity, quite the reverse happens in reality. Scientists are beginning to become aware of this problem. All too slowly.
◊◊◊
As said, this is the essence of the core of present-day scientific medicine.
◊◊◊
Related Posts
< Mind = Body> Healthcare
This is bound to become the pinnacle of science in healthcare. [see: “Fundamental Reality in Psychology“] Psychotherapy imitating medicine This is still the present-day situation, including diagnosis → therapy. It makes psychotherapy a weak sibling of ‘big brother medicine.’ Striving to develop and use proper psychotherapeutic techniques in-imitation emboldens psychotherapy while pushing the domain into Read the full article…
Psychotherapy and Placebo
To the degree that psychotherapy amounts to placebo, we may need to rethink it. Placebo >< depth The concept ‘placebo’ is used here in the sense of deception. [see: “Placebo Without Deception?”] It’s crucial to make a full distinction with the concept of empathy. [see: “Landscape of Empathy”] I clarified the difference in [see: “Empathy Read the full article…
No Lasting Change from the Surface
In contrast to depth, the surface is the ‘superficial’ level of the human mind. Something may temporarily change at the surface like quicksand. It’s not the right level for lasting change. Read about ubiquitous depth. In therapy/coaching, attaining lasting change is a challenge. Theory goes toward a genetically determined stable state whereto any change (from Read the full article…