The core of present-day scientific medicine is more and more boiling down to \u2018evidence based medicine\u2019 (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 (\u2018blind\u2019) in regard to whether they get placebo or the \u2018active\u2019 substance.<\/p>\n
\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n
Nice.<\/p>\n
\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n
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\u2019t, then present-day scientific medicine is still at a low level of science and should evolve from this with extreme urgency.<\/p>\n
\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n
So: is blind very blind? I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n
\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n
The point is that a placebo doesn\u2019t work through conscious<\/em> expectation. As a matter of fact, it doesn\u2019t work through a conscious whatsoever. If a placebo for instance lowers the blood pressure, it\u2019s not because you consciously lower your BP. Purely consciously, you\u2019re not capable of doing so. Placebo (or better said: your own inner strength in this) works through the sub<\/em>conscious. Therefore the sub<\/em>conscious is what is important in all this.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n So the pertinent question is not whether you are consciously blind, but rather whether you are sub<\/em>consciously blind. That is a question that has hardly at all entered into scientifically.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n 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\u2019t it? One can be certain that the subconscious registers any<\/em> bodily change. Therefore also the slightest side-effect of medication.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n Since medication (the \u2018active substance\u2019 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.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n There is little or no double-blindness at all!<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n The same argument can be made not only for the side-effects, but also for the meant effect. This makes it even worse!<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n As said, this is the essence of the core of present-day scientific medicine.<\/p>\n \u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n \n