7. An eye-opener on double-blind studies

January 17, 2018 Health & Healing, Sticky Thoughts No Comments

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.

◊◊◊

Please follow and like us:
LinkedIn
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
RSS
Follow by Email
SHARE

Related Posts

Schizophrenia (and Other Psychotic States)

Schizophrenia is not an AURELIS-indication. However, I personally think it would be a good one, helpful to schizophrenics. The absence of this indication has legal reasons: Suppose someone with an upcoming psychosis uses the indication and gets a psychotic episode… Is AURELIS to blame? At the same time I think this is (as I write Read the full article…

6. Phobia: let the spiders talk to you

If you have a phobia for spiders and you go to a therapist, there’s a big chance that he will subject you to a ‘systematic desensitization’. This is: you are gradually brought into contact with ‘spider’ until you can stand its presence or even touch the real thing. Simple procedure, no? And doesn’t it work? Read the full article…

From Grief to Growth

There can be positive elements in grief – if you open yourself. The death of a person – the death of an idea – the death of a relationship – even the death of a hoped-for electoral outcome… One should not get rid of grief or bypass it. Yet what regularly happens, is that a Read the full article…