As I've said before, this article is incredibly wrong and quite misleading. If you ever wanted evidence that most Americans do not understand how medicines are developed or what the Placebo Effect is, this article (and the responses here) serve as ample evidence.<p>For a more rigorous refutation by a trained professional, please read: <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1248" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1248</a><p>I'll pull the zinger quote from the article above for you:<p>>No, it’s not like that at all. Perhaps the studies are just that well done, or maybe the drugs being developed suck, or maybe companies are studying more candidate drugs and screening for efficacy. Just about any explanation that doesn’t involve aliens is better than “placebo is getting stronger”.
I would speculate that when placebos appear to work, it is primarily
because they don't do anything, besides possibly providing some
increased hope to the patient, allowing the body to work without the
"side" effects of drugs. The human body naturally tries to heal
itself to the best of its ability.<p>Here's a very interesting example of placebos being administered on a routine basis, for years.<p><pre><code> Natural Hygiene, as it is today, can be traced back to Dr Isaac
Jennings (of Oberlin, Ohio, USA) who, after practising medicine for 20
years, began to ask questions when, during a fever outbreak in the
summer of 1815, a patient who rested, drank water and did nothing,
recovered in absolute record time compared to patients who had been
medicated. Based on this, Dr Jennings noted similar results with many
other patients.
He then went on to treat many patients with what must have been one
of the first placebo (dummy pill) treatments. In 1822 he gave up
medical pills, plasters, powders and potions and treated patients with
pills made from bread and vegetable-coloured water for the next 20
years. This he only did to keep the patients’ confidence in him. He
would then advise his patients to correct their lifestyle and diet to
a more natural approach. He then practised for a further 20 years the
"do nothing mode of treating disease." He wrote three books, "Medicine
Reform" (1847), "Philosophy of Human Life" (1852) and "Tree of Life"
(1867).
Natural hygiene was often referred to at this stage as Orthopathy
meaning TRUE or RIGHT AFFECTION or BEHAVIOUR.
Dr Jennings had a great influence upon Dr R T Trall, who went on to
do more for the hygiene movement than any man, next to Dr Herbert
Shelton.</code></pre>
<a href="http://www.mary-anns.com/Natural%20Hygiene.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mary-anns.com/Natural%20Hygiene.htm</a><p>I've read this account on other sites as well. The Jennings story can be verified by other sources online. His deliberate use of placebo for so many years is fascinating.<p>More information here on Jennings: <a href="http://naturalhygienesociety.org/past2.html" rel="nofollow">http://naturalhygienesociety.org/past2.html</a>
Perhaps researchers are finding the placebo effect more successfully due to a sort of meta-placebo effect. They're expecting to observe it, so they do... ;)
My theory concerning the increasing placebo effect is pharmaceutical advertising. We are increasingly hearing the message "pill X will cure problem Y"; this primes us for the placebo effect.<p>Just one of the positive effects of drug ads.
When I read this article, I got hung up on the part about the scientists studying the biochemical pathways of the placebo effect. How interesting. It saddens me to think he doesn't get much funding.<p>And then I had this thought: What if he developed a pill that caused an artificial biochemical release of the chemicals responsible for the placebo response. A non-placebo that triggers a placebo response in your body. Hmmmm. How would you even a test such a pill?
I just wonder if it would help some patients, if you could buy placebos. I mean branded placebos: "This is the placebo used in trial x and y and shown to have positive effect on z and w".
<a href="http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/12/28/placebo-rebroadcast/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/12/28/placebo-rebroadcas...</a><p>Very good episode of RadioLab about the same topic.
I've not had a chance to read the article yet, will do so if I get a chance over lunchtime. However, the posting reminded me of an Radiolab story I listened to over the weekend that explores this topic as well and had some good observations about the power of mind over matter.<p><a href="http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/12/28/placebo-rebroadcast/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/12/28/placebo-rebroadcas...</a>
I wonder if people think placebos are magically "getting more effective" because people in the US are actually taking way more drugs today than they actually need to? Out of all my friends back home in the states almost <i>all</i> of them are on some kind of prescription for something. One couple pays over $2k per month for medication! Is all this <i>really</i> necessary? In this couple's case, some of the drugs are apparently only needed to counter the effects of some of the others.
<i>By the late '90s, for example, the classic antianxiety drug diazepam (also known as Valium) was still beating placebo in France and Belgium. But when the drug was tested in the US, it was likely to fail.</i><p>?<p>Really? Does this pass the smell test? I've never taken Valium [1], but I'm pretty sure its effects are strong and clear, to the point of creating serious addictions.<p>[1] On second thought, I probably have, as a pre-op, and yes the effects were obvious and unlikely to be replicated by a sugar pill.
I stopped reading this half way down. Is there anything in the article except blether?<p>The first half seemed to be saying 'Drugs companies do tests against placebos. Merck is short of drugs.' Can someone who took the trouble to plough through it summarise the second half?