Placebo and Nocebo effects explained by Dr. Lemoine

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 24788
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 4179




by Obamot » 05/09/12, 14:28

Of course yes ! We are in "captivity", we humans in our vast majority!

Only it is a relatively consented captivity (and sometimes not even) ... It is among other things what we call the "Need for constraint"!

The main problem of "placebo treatment"Is that no one can guarantee a measurable success rate with great certainty of result, and for good reason: since everyone will react differently, both biochemically and emotionally ...

The opposite - by way of example - is the case of painkillers in general. They guarantee to the vast majority of beneficiaries, a strong alleviation of their pain. But with varying degrees of effectiveness, it is true (hence the famous scale of 1 to 10, of subjective but very real perception of pain ...)

Thus, in his heart of hearts, a patient could very well decide: to have pain or not (and to varying degrees) ... and of course not to be able to choose to have pain or not, in all the cases where the pain comes from a direct nociceptive stimulus! (Although there again, the response may vary depending on the mental predisposition of the subject ... as much as according to his personal biochemical response characteristics ...) A whole world!

Just as much as any other patient - in other circumstances - might just as well "decide to die"(even if no vital process put him directly in imminent danger of death), a will against which no therapeutic arsenal made available could save him, and even if, in speaking with the patient, the latter is in good faith by taking all his medications at the prescribed doses and intervals ... And let him show his will to get out of it.At the best we will be able to alleviate his suffering.

Obviously that strongly relativizes the concept according to which "the conditions of the experience", would be invalid or not, depending on whether the subject would be in real condition, captive, or whatever ... Yes of course, there may be incidences ... or none! It depends! But in principle, depending on certain conditions of stress (or other, such as pain), we manage to reproduce some => therefore still no absolute certainties ... What does it matter (I do not dehumanize the subject for all that , eh ...) the simple fact that the answer varies, induces that these variables are generated by the subjects, which in itself constitutes a formal proof !!

So it is not enough to know it: placebo or not! But that doesn't mean you have to be categorical one way or the other ...! And to say that "everything is like this or that... "Because it's not that simple, not that Manichean.

So, that obviously does not mean that I agree with this approach which would invalidate any laboratory research, under the pretext that "It doesn't happen like that in real life, so it has to be wrong"!

Already because captivity in itself is not artificial!

Then because I can say, because I have personally met, that the research that Dr. Kousmine and members of his team, in his own laboratory, that their experiences have confirmed what she discovered in field medicine , in actual fact, as it happens in real life and with real people (lol) and more in the laboratory. Or if you want, his patients were de facto an integral part of a sort of in-vivo laboratory (but this is pushing it a bit far, otherwise I would have had to be part of it too, since as a journalist , her method saved me ... But she might not have saved another person, with somewhat different biochemical characteristics or response ...)

So let's stop being categorical one way or the other. The convincing results of “placebo treatments” are there to remind us of this caution.
0 x

User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720




by sen-no-sen » 05/09/12, 20:43

Obamot wrote:Of course yes ! We are in "captivity", we humans in our vast majority!

Only it is a relatively consented captivity (and sometimes not even) ... It is among other things what we call the "Need for constraint"!


The life expectancy of an animal in captivity is often greater than that of a wild animal (sometimes double), it is the same for humans.
In wilderness life expectancy is often greatly reduced (illness, injury, disability, predators).
It is for this reason that "Elders"were so respected in ancient traditions, (which is hardly the case today), they were seen as champions of survival.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273




by Janic » 05/09/12, 20:59

sen no sen
There you mix wild animal and domestic animal. In the wild animal there is a ruthless selection where it is the most robust which survive and generate other robust animals. Domestic animals are selected according to aesthetic criteria and live in conditions as artificial as humans and are as fragile as they are. Obviously if we consider only the age reached and not the state in which this age is reached, they can live older ... like our old people more or less bedridden in their modern dying houses.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11142
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1881




by Ahmed » 05/09/12, 21:17

Of course, this "captivity" is real and stressful, hence the response of the laboratories which provide the neuroleptics which hide the symptoms!
A remark concerning the absence of influence of the practitioner's speech on very young patients and animals: the content of the oral speech effectively escapes them, but not the sign language and the intonations of the voice to which they are very receptive.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273




by Janic » 05/09/12, 21:28

A remark concerning the absence of influence of the practitioner's speech on very young patients and animals: the content of the oral speech effectively escapes them, but not the sign language and the intonations of the voice to which they are very receptive.
This is only partially true. For these intonations or gestures to be explicit, they must be accentuated enough to be deciphered! However, many therapists have a neutral tone in their explanations, a tone which cannot be probably not (I'm careful!) be deciphered by the unfamiliar animal or the baby.
If the master says: seated to a dog, he will sit down, if a stranger gives the same order, therefore the tone and the gestures, the animal will not do it.
So the placebo for animals or babies, I remain in the expectation.
0 x

Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11142
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1881




by Ahmed » 05/09/12, 21:47

Neutrality is not neutral and it is perceived as such!
Besides, animals (I know better than children) can experience affects that we try to hide ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273




by Janic » 05/09/12, 21:50

Neutrality is not neutral and it is perceived as such!
should i have said a monotone tone?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11142
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1881




by Ahmed » 05/09/12, 22:01

No, that doesn't change the fact that not wanting to express an emotion is a sign that is sent and received as such: everything is language.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 24788
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 4179




by Obamot » 05/09/12, 22:28

Sen_No_Sen wrote:A remark concerning the absence of influence of the practitioner's speech on very young patients and animals: the content of the oral speech effectively escapes them, but not the sign language and the intonations of the voice to which they are very receptive.
This is only partially true. For these intonations or gestures to be explicit, they must be accentuated enough to be deciphered! [...]
If the master says: seated to a dog, he will sit down, if a stranger gives the same order, therefore the tone and the gestures, the animal will not.

Yes and no! It depends on the persuasive spirit of the one who gives the order!

I experienced it after seeing a young Arab child, giving a gesture order to a dog he did not know ... and the dog immediately executed!

Try once, when you are barked by a dog, not to react and suddenly point the finger at the dog's kennel or the place from which he came and doing it insistently! Well at least once in two he does it, even if he protests a little while whining a little !!! As if his playground was suddenly removed ...

Try in different situations and with different dogs and you will end up doing it more often than you think!

It is undoubtedly due to the fact, that the dogs make - after many selections of the subjects more and more "domesticable" - spontaneously and almost naturally trust every man, in principle ... If a dog attacks a man and that the latter him gives a counter-order, it disrupts the hierarchy assimilated by the animal, and the dog, not expecting it, shows himself helpless and reluctantly executes the counter-order (this is my explanation).
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273




by Janic » 06/09/12, 09:08

I had several dogs and they only react as if the master is present, in his absence the dog is no longer under influence and good courage to make him obey an order (unless he has been trained for this purpose !) but we are moving away from the placebo / nocebo.

Or, if you like, his patients were de facto an integral part of a sort of in-vivo laboratory (but this is pushing it a bit far, otherwise I would have had to be part of it too, since as a journalist, her method saved me ... But she might not have saved another person, having somewhat different biochemical characteristics or response ...)
this is what underlies hamed's thinking, the reassuring presence being sufficient in itself.
The mere fact of trying a method (which we know has already proven itself) is a placebo element sufficient for some.
Where it's more interesting is when the person is opposed to a technique (like homeopathy) and it still works.
When I cite this case of a co-worker colleague with end-stage cancer and I say that he will get out of it, there is no placebo effect since neither doctor nor colleagues believe it. When he does, and I announce that he is going to die, no one believes me either and he dies as I had announced. No placebo or nocebo effect in sight.
Last edited by Janic the 06 / 09 / 12, 09: 17, 1 edited once.
0 x


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 9 guests