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
What vs. How in Psychotherapies
Crucial is where change comes from: the outside or the inside. I see in the latter the Compassion-factor. Compassion For a quick entry into the concept of Compassion as I use it, [see: “Compassion, basically“] Compassionate healing comes from the inside out. This ‘inside’ doesn’t just mean ‘inside the mind.’ It goes deeper within the Read the full article…
Magical Medical Science
Did we get rid of magic in medical science? Should we? Why? How? About the weirdly snaked figure above This is frequently used as a symbol for medicine. It is a ‘rod of Asklepios,’ going back to Greek and Egyptian times. Thus, we end in settings of musterion. [see: “Isis’ priests, named ‘therapists’”] Time to Read the full article…
The Client is the Therapy
This is about the client in psychotherapy. It is also about the patient in medicine insofar as the mind is involved ― say, psycho-somatics, easily involving half of the medical domain. See my book Your Mind as Cure. Psychotherapy, schematically A good evolution in healthcare, including psychotherapy, is to put the client at the center. Read the full article…