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
Are Non-Specific Factors Specific?
Non-specific factors in therapy are ‘non-specific’ to instrumental therapies. What if these factors are instrumentalized? Please read first: [see: “Non-Specific Factors of Therapy“] “If we can delineate them, they are specific.” Logically, if you can conceptualize the non-specific factors, you are building a new kind of psychotherapy based on these factors. You can put the Read the full article…
Alzheimer on (Lack of) Purpose?
With an estimated 150 million Alzheimer’s cases projected worldwide by 2050, the relentless search for answers has centered on genetic and biochemical factors, including amyloid plaques and tau tangles. [1] Yet, another powerful player might be right in front of us: a deep, sustained sense of purpose. Could the way we view and nurture life’s Read the full article…
Psycho-Somatic Symbolism
Can psycho-somatic symptoms be seen as symbols-in-reverse? This blog explores this idea — inner tension expressing itself outwardly through the body. Unlike horizontal “this stands for that” explanations, this view opens a vertical dialogue with depth. Such symbolism can transform our understanding of illness, therapy, and coaching. [Please read first The Living Power of Symbols.] Read the full article…