On 2/6/2013 2:22 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 10:14 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> he placebo effect is strongest on things which are not objectively
>> measurable.
>
> Is it?
> I've seen results from drug tests where the placebo group has better
> results than the control group but not as good as the group that takes
> the actual drug.
> (Andrel's opinion would be of interest.)
>
That is precisely why it has to be measured for. It **does** have an 
objective measurable effect, so has to be factored out, as much as 
possible, to prevent skewing the results. The worst possible failure of 
any test system is accidentally creating conditions where one of the 
test groups actually "know" they are taking the actual medication. Its 
the whole reason why they use double blind. So the patient doesn't know 
that the nurse doesn't know which pill they have, based on the doctor 
not telling either one of them. If somehow the researcher, or the person 
handing out the pills, figures out which group actually is receiving 
either one, it fowls the results, and its all over.

This is in contrast to pseudo-science studies, which either use pure 
self reporting, where the people are self medicating, or fail to prevent 
people knowing which one they are taking, etc. And, if you compare 
medication A to medication B, you still need to use placebo C, to be 
sure, so as to remove biases that may arise out of other factors, which 
might be distorting the results of one, or both, groups taking A and B, 
if you want to really sure. If you don't care, you don't do that, you 
use stupid small study sizes, people (or animals) prone to the problem 
you are studying, ignore vastly contradictory data, and cherry pick what 
fits.

There is a big gripe in the whole anti-GMO bunch over one of those 
studies. The study itself isn't "bad" per-say. Its being treated as 
definitive, despite being preliminary. The data showed relatively 
insignificant results, within margin of error, and certain decisions 
about how it was conducted, how the data was analyzed, etc., was.. 
questionable. At best, it suggest further study, at worst.. it makes 
implausible claims, doesn't provide a mechanism, shows anomolies in both 
the test and control group data, which suggests its not reliable, and 
worse, didn't use enough subjects, or over a long enough period, to rule 
out other possibilities.

The anti-GMO people call these conclusions a witch hunt. The rest of the 
scientific community are calling it sloppy, premature, unlikely to be 
correct, since there is literally no known way that the food in question 
might differ chemically from the normal crops, other than the addition 
of a protein that "exists" in other foods, albeit not necessarily in the 
same amounts. Or, in other words - further study needs to be done, and 
an explanation for how/why its causing a problem, if it is, needs to be 
come up with.

Anti-GMO's "mechanism" is, of course, that somehow adding a gene to 
produce vitamin A in a plant that didn't have it before is the **exact* 
logical equivalent of adding a gene to produce a useful quantity of an 
insect specific poison (as per the specific thing being testing in this 
case), and therefor adding *any* gene, at all, will make you grow extra 
limb, turn purple, and explode... or, what ever the frak they think 
golden rice (as appose to the slightly more plausible roundup-ready 
products) is supposed to do, because its been "genetically engineered by 
a mad scientist!"

Sigh...

Post a reply to this message