Posted by SLS on April 17, 2001, at 11:44:16
In reply to Re: thoughts on active placebos and true efficacy? , posted by mikes on April 16, 2001, at 23:23:16
> I don't think that ad's are a farce (how could they be, remember how the first maoi was discovered?), I was saying they working for maybe 20 percent. Which could still be true considering all of quitkin's writings. Furthermore, I am taking those writings with a grain of salt for two reasons. First, I don't have access to the actual paper (unless I want to spend seven dollars), and second, I haven't read any article that argues against Quitkin's findings. Quitkin is not God. I'm not going to believe what he says just because he is a doctor and can use big words.
My reasons for producing the citations are that Quitkin and his team are the only psychiatric researchers I have come across that have looked at the dynamics of placebo in investigations of the treatment of depression. He also attempts to identify and quantify the bias that can exist in both clinician and investigator, as well as patient allegience. I don't see an obvious agenda in his methods and conclusions except to be better able to interpret investigative results and possibly refine experimental methodology. It seems to me that he tried to be objective, especially since he made it a point to recognize the potential for investigator bias.I had no agenda in citing Quitkin's work except to add to this thread some recognition that the placebo phenomenon in psychiatric investigations has actually been studied. I knew of Quitkin's studies, so I thought it might be a good idea to see something other than a pronouncement of our own beliefs. I don't know how best to interpret the results of these studies and reviews when taken together. I'm not sure that Quitkin does either. I don't know what he believes. The one thing that does tend to evolve from his findings is that antidepressants are substantially better than taking nothing at all. They are even substantially better than placebo, even active placebo. What is interesting is that people who reported feeling a slight improvement during the standard ten-day placebo run-in introductory phase of a study seem to have a better chance of responding well to the active agent. I don't think this observation is consistent with an agenda determined to equate placebo with nul. I imagine this result was as surprising to Quitkin's team as it is to me.
Anyone is free to interpret these citations in any way they want to. If I feel frisky, maybe I'll try to do so for myself.
Just some info... Not the word of God.
* If not by using scientifically meaningful words that just happen to be big, then how best should science report its results and interpretations?
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:60081
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010417/msgs/60189.html